European Conference Promoting the Socio-Economic Beneﬁts...

European Conference

Promoting theSocio-Economic Benefitsof Natura 2000Brussels, 28–29 November 2002

Conference Proceedings

Proceedings of theEuropean Conference on‘Promoting the Socio-EconomicBenefits of Natura 2000’, Brussels,28–29 November 2002

Report by theInstitute for European EnvironmentalPolicy (IEEP), December 2002

The project was financially supported by theEuropean Commission (DG Env); the Danish Forestand Nature Agency; the UK Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs; EnglishNature and Scottish Natural Heritage.We are also grateful for the contribution of theMinistry of the Flemish Community – NatureDirection (Afdeling Natuur).

Design: Richard Reeve: +44 (0)20 7735 5944Printed on 100% recycled paper

© Copyright IEEP 2002

ISBN: 1 873906 46 3

1 Introduction to the Conference 1

2 Summaries of presentations and 3

working groups

SESSION 1: INTRODUCTIONS AND SCENE-SETTING 3

Welcome and introductions 3David Baldock, Director, IEEP

Natura 2000 – state of play 3Nicholas Hanley, Head of Nature and Biodiversity Unit,DGEnv, European Commission

Developing a vision for sustainable rural development 3Kim Carstensen, CEO, WWF Denmark

SESSION 2: IDENTIFYING SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS 4

Identifying the socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000 5Patrick ten Brink, IEEP

Developing methods for identifying benefits 5Michael Jungmeier, ECO Institut, Austria

Using Natura 2000 as a development tool 5Peteris Strautins, WWF Latvia

Generating local awareness and debate 6Luc Dries, WWF Belgium

Key conditions for realising benefits 6Jacqui Cuff, Rural Horizons

SESSION 3: REALISING THE BENEFITS 7

The global value of nature 7Jouni Paavola, University of East Anglia

Working Group 1: Generating economic benefitsthrough Natura 2000 management

Targeting agri-environment schemes at 8Natura 2000 in PortugalAldina Franco, Centre for Ecology, Evolution andConservation, University of East Anglia

Exploring options for the Riaza River Gorges, Spain 8Luis Suarez, WWF Spain/Adena

… CONTINUED

Promoting theSocio-Economic Benefitsof Natura 2000:Conference Proceedings

Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy

The Institute for EuropeanEnvironmental Policy (IEEP) is a leadingcentre for the analysis and developmentof environmental policy in Europe. Ourwork focuses on European Union (EU)environment policy, and environmentalaspects of other sectoral policies such astransport, regional development,agriculture and fisheries. We are alsoactively engaged in the development ofpolicy in EU Member States and inCentral and Eastern Europe. IEEP seeksboth to raise awareness of Europeanenvironmental policy and to advancepolicy-making along sustainable paths.

WWF is one of the world’s largest andmost experienced independentconservation organisations, with almost5 million supporters and a globalnetwork active in more than 90countries.

The mission of WWF is to stop thedegradation of the planet’s naturalenvironment and to build a future inwhich humans live in harmony withnature, by:

• Conserving the world’s biologicaldiversity

• Ensuring that the use of renewablenatural resources is sustainable

• Promoting the reduction of pollutionand wasteful consumption.

ii PROMOTING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF NATURA 2000 • CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

CONTENTS … CONTINUED

Working Group 2: Marketing the Natura 2000 brand

The Natura 2000 Green Days: experiences in 9the NetherlandsRoelof Heringa, Staatsbosbeheer, Netherlands

Creating a Natura 2000 brand for‘Vildmose potatoes’ 9Mogens Ove Madsen, Aalborg University, Denmark

Working Group 3: Natura 2000 as an assetfor regional development

Natura 2000 as an asset for regional development 10Stephen Warman, Team Manager Cornwall and Isles ofScilly, English Nature

Generating tourism on and aroundLake Peipsi, Estonia 11Rein Kuresoo, Estonian Fund for Natura

SESSION 4: GETTING THE MESSAGE ACROSS 12

Communication and cooperation in Natura 2000: 12lessons from the Flemish region of BelgiumEls Martens, Nature Direction,Ministry of the Flemish Community

Natura 2000 and the Green Spider Network 12Dorte Bennedbaek, member of the European GreenSpider Network, Danish Ministry of Environment

SESSION 5: GETTING THE CONDITIONS RIGHT 13

Natura 2000 – a new focus for EUfunding programmes? 13Astrid Kaemena, DG Environment, on behalf ofthe Article 8 (Co-financing) Working Group

Putting Natura 2000 at the heart of the CAP 13Thierry de l’Escaille, European Landowners’ Organisation

CLOSING SUMMARY

Building on the El Teide conclusions? 14Nicholas Hanley, Head of Unit, DG Environment

3 Summary and Ways Forward 15

Annex I: Final Conference Programme 18

Annex II: Participants list 19

The European Conference on Promoting the Benefits ofNatura 2000 was jointly organised by IEEP and WWF. Theconference was part of a one-year project to identify andcommunicate the actual and potential benefits of Natura2000 among socio-economic actors and authoritiesacross Europe. At the step of the new phase ofestablishment of long term management planning forthe Natura 2000 network, the aim was to increasepeople’s understanding and appreciation of the positiveopportunities that Natura 2000 can bring to localcommunities and economies.

1.1 The Natura 2000 Network

Natura 2000 is the network of special areas for natureconservation established under the Habitats Directive.Although Natura 2000 is supposed to be in place by2004, work is very much behind schedule. The delays increating Natura 2000 are partly due to local concernsthat Natura 2000 designation will damage prospects foreconomic development in these areas. In practice,however, there is increasing evidence that Natura 2000designation can lead to opportunities for localcommunities and economies, as well as to society as awhole given the right conditions. As Natura 2000 entersa new phase focusing on the management of sites, thereis a chance again to address the tension between natureconservation and economic and social development, andas far as possible, to resolve conflicts and maximisebenefits.

1.2 IEEP/WWF Project – Promotingthe Socio-economic Benefitsof Natura 2000

IEEP and WWF came together to identify thesocio-economic benefits and, using theirnetwork of contacts and communicationexpertise, to promote these benefits widely. Amajor part of this process has involved preparingsix case studies looking at proposed Natura 2000sites in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia,Latvia and Spain. Local seminars provided an

opportunity to raise awareness of, and exchangeinformation on, potential and actual benefits of theNatura 2000 network. Importantly, these local eventsattracted participants from the range of stakeholderspotentially affected by Natura 2000 designation,including farmers and landowners, local authoritiesand business.

These efforts culminated in the publication of a series oflocal brochures, produced in original language andtranslated into English, on the following actual orpotential Natura 2000 areas (see map):

Austria Steirische Grenzmur, floodplains corridoralong the Mur, bordering Slovenia

Belgium Pond Complex of Central-Limburg

Denmark Lille Vildmose – A raised peat bog unique insize and history

Estonia Emajõe Suursoo Mire and Piirissaar Island

Latvia Ainazi Town and its Rural Territory (ATRT)

Spain Riaza River Gorges – habitat of largestpopulation of griffon vultures

PROMOTING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF NATURA 2000 • CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 1

1. Introduction to the Conference

Local input was organised by WWF Austria, Belgium,Denmark, Latvia and Spain, as well as the Peipsi Centrefor Transboundary Cooperation, Estonia.

1.3 European Conference to Promote theSocio-Economic Benefits of Natura 2000

The European Conference, held in November 2002,gathered ideas and lessons on the perception of Natura2000 and ways to promote it ‘better’ among localcommunities and economic players. The conferenceshowcased the results of the six case studies, as well ascases collected from other regions of the EU and the newMember States. It exchanged experience and goodpractice, for example, in relation to employment creation,and rural and tourism development in or around Natura2000 sites. It examined future opportunities to maximisebenefits, and ways to realise these such as through bettercommunication or increased local participation andaccess to EU funding.

A substantial Conference background report wasproduced to inform discussions and to provide a usefulreference for delegates and others wishing to promotethe benefits of Natura 2000. It also constitutes a sourceof information for those wishing to benefit individually orcollectively from Natura 2000. The report presentspotential socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000,providing concrete examples and good practice drawnfrom the six case studies.

In preparing this Conference, and in the course of theproject as a whole, we have tried to provide an honestand balanced picture of existing practices andopportunities, including opportunities for individuallandowners, local communities and society more broadly.In so doing, it was recognised that while some benefitsare already being reaped, in many cases substantialadditional effort is needed to harness the full potential ofNatura 2000.

The presentations and discussions during the conferenceresulted in a set of conclusions, summarised at the end ofthese proceedings. The lessons learned can be broughtinto various fora, including discussions oncommunicating and financing Natura 2000, review of theCommon Agricultural Policy and the future of the EUbudget. This includes in particular the CandidateCountries, so that some of the mistakes made by theexisting EU countries can be avoided.

1.4 Support for the project and Conference

Organising this project and conference would not havebeen possible without the financial support of others. Weare particularly grateful to the European Commission(DGENV, Communications and Civil Society Unit), as wellas the Danish Forest and Nature Agency; English Nature;Scottish Natural Heritage; the Ministry of the FlemishCommunity, Nature Direction; and the UK Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for their support.

We are also grateful for the considerable contributions ofother individuals, including staff at IEEP and the WWFEuropean Policy Office, as well as the many contributionsof the chairs, rapporteurs and speakers during theConference.

1.5 Structure of the Proceedings

These proceedings provide a brief and accessibleoverview of the Conference presentations andsubsequent discussion. The main part of the proceedingscontains short summaries of each of the presentationsduring the plenary and working group sessions, followedby summaries of the question and answer sessions(Section 2). A short synthesis of key conclusions drawnfrom the Conference and recommendations forsubsequent work, follows in Section 3. Finally, theannexes include the Conference Programme (Annex I)and the final delegate list (Annex II).

These proceedings are complemented by the six casestudies, produced in national language and English, thepublished report ‘Promoting the Socio-Economic Benefitsof Natura 2000’, as well as presentations from theConference and other background material. The variousproject outputs are available on the IEEP and WWF websites: www.ieep.org.uk and www.panda.org, respectively.

Web sites for project partners are:

IEEP www.ieep.org.uk

WWF European Policy Office www.panda.org/epo

WWF Austria www.wwf.at

WWF Belgium www.wwf.be

WWF Denmark www.wwf.dk

WWF Estonia www.wwf.es

WWF Latvia www.wwf.lv

Peipsi CTC www.ctc.ee

2 PROMOTING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF NATURA 2000 • CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

INTRODUCTION TO THE CONFERENCE

SESSION 1: INTRODUCTIONS ANDSCENE-SETTING

Welcome and introductionsDavid Baldock, Director, IEEP

David Baldock opened the Conference, introducing themain objectives for the Conference and the generalcontext for a discussion on the socio-economic benefitsof Natura 2000. He noted that 2002 was the 10thanniversary of the launch of the Habitats Directive, whichcalls for the creation of the Natura 2000 network ofexcellence. The Habitats Directive is nothing less thanepoch-making legislation, highly ambitious, and uniquein the world. WWF and IEEP have been following thedevelopment and now the implementation of thisDirective and the Birds Directive with great interest.While progress has been slow, it has neverthelessbeen remarkable.

The state of play on Natura 2000Nicholas Hanley, Head of Nature and BiodiversityUnit, DGEnv, European Commission

Nicholas Hanley summarised the state of play on Natura2000 in the EU. He clarified that Natura 2000 sites, takentogether, account for an area approximately the size ofGermany. Furthermore, the 60 million hectares, beingdesignated in the current 15 EU Member Sates, will riseto at least 85 million hectares when sites in theCandidate Countries are included. In the accessionnegotiations there were no derogations given regardingNatura 2000, and the Commission therefore expects listsof proposed sites to be ready on the day of accession. Inthe meantime, the Candidate Countries are alreadysitting in on Habitats Committee meetings, and areengaging in regular bilateral discussions, facilitating the

challenge of communicating Natura 2000 lists by thedate of accession. Another important issue is that theCandidate Countries will not be getting support underthe CAP in the same way as existing Member Statescurrently do. By the time they are fully eligible for CAPsupport, the CAP is likely to have changed. While MrHanley acknowledged the fact that there is the risk thatenlargement is to the detriment of nature, he emphasisedthat the full implementation of Natura 2000 offers thebest type of guarantee to ensure that nature conservationis balanced with economic and social development.

Developing a vision for sustainablerural developmentKim Carstensen, CEO, WWF Denmark

Kim Carstensen presented a vision for sustainable ruraldevelopment. He started by outlining the key historicdevelopments that have affected rural development,noting, inter alia, the tremendous intensification ofagriculture in the EU and the growth in road building.There is also a rural social crisis, with depopulationcausing difficulties in many areas. Agricultural systemsmust or will change given the inevitable need to reduceagricultural subsidies, whether influenced by WTOdecisions or the costs of EU enlargement. He noted theincreased fragmentation of nature, continuing despiteprogress in setting up the Natura 2000 network, andunderlined the need to improve ecological ‘connectivity’so as to allow nature to function properly. Someconservation sites are too small, and larger areas areneeded to allow for more site integrity and a betterresponse to pressures, such as global warming andpollution impacts from outside sites.

The Habitats Directive now includes around 15,000 sites,covering 0.5 million km2. Mr Carstensen emphasised thatit is important to address issues such as compensation tolandowners affected by Natura 2000, and ways of


2. Summary of Presentationsand Discussions

integrating Natura 2000 into rural development morebroadly. Furthermore, progress is dependent upon therebeing proper public participation, anchoring andacceptance of Natura 2000. It is evident that sites offernew opportunities (eg Lille Vildmose in Denmark), andthese chances need to be explored, in order to identifywhat the particular value or competitive advantage is ineach case. Overall, the key is to move away from a simplefocus on conventional land-use patterns (agriculturalproduction, road-building, etc), to a form ofdevelopment that includes the opportunities offered byNatura 2000. In this regard, it is important to explore thedifferences between ‘leader’ regions and others ‘lagging’behind. In the case of the former, there should be a focuson using existing strengths and qualifications, diversifyingincome sources and rural amenities, and prioritisingpublic involvement. In ‘laggard’ rural areas, there is agreater need to build capacity, to make it possible forthese areas to become leaders in future. At the strategiclevel, attention should be given to establishing a networkof core sites (Natura 2000), as well as ecological corridorsbetween protected areas. Mr Carstensen further stressedthe need for greater policy and programme integrationand coherence, and for an emphasis on strengtheninglocal capacity and local governance. With these efforts,the opportunities of Natura 2000 for sustainable localcommunity development can be realised.

DISCUSSION: MAIN POINTS

The need for more ‘joined-up’ thinking on Natura2000, particularly as regards the integration of itsobjectives into sectoral policies, was discussed.Participants identified structural barriers tocommunicating in relation to Natura 2000. InGermany, for instance, communication between theLänder governments and NGO can be slowed downgiven (perceptions of) the Länder’s politicalaffiliation. It may be helpful to outline ways ofcommunicating more effectively, with localities,regions and groups choosing the approach mostsuitable for them. Initiatives like ‘Car Free Cities’ forNatura 2000 may also be useful.

People are often suspicious of governmentinterference, though perhaps less so of localgovernment than central government. Dialogueneeds to be open, with people feeling listened toand taken seriously. In relation to site designation, itmust be clear whether landowners are beingconsulted or just being ‘told’, otherwise it may prove

difficult to get landowners to follow advicesubsequently. A forestry sector representative notedthat strong consultation is standard practice in somecountries and this should be extended to otherregions. If not, then the chance to communicate thepositive aspects of Natura 2000 may be missed, whileresentment is created towards ‘Europe’.

It seems that many people are still unaware of theNatura 2000 protection ‘tool’, its overall aims andwhy individual sites are designated. It is oftendifficult for people to visualise their local piece of thelandscape as part of a greater European network.Some sites are designated to protect existing habitatsand species, others to restore aspects of the site, orto ensure greater connectivity between core areas byproviding wildlife corridors.

The participants further acknowledged a needto involve corporate interests in site discussions,notably water companies and the tourism industry.Benefits to the insurance, banking and other servicesectors should also be examined. Good naturalsurroundings also make it easier to attract employeesacross the board.

Smaller businesses also need to be involved moreclosely. This may be facilitated by addressing groupsof Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) whencommunicating the objectives of Natura 2000 andexploring associated business opportunities. It wasnoted that much urban development stems fromSMEs, and that these experiences could perhaps betransferred to rural areas.

SESSION 2: IDENTIFYING SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITSThe aim of this round table session was to present theoverall picture of socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000(Patrick ten Brink of IEEP), based on work carried out byIEEP, WWF national and partner offices, and nationalexperts. Presentations were made on three of the sixproject case studies, with Michael Jungmeier, E-C-OInstitut, Austria, focusing on the Steirische Grenzmurstudy and the specific methods used to identify benefits.Peteris Strautins, WWF Latvia, presented aspects of theLatvian Ainazi Town and its Rural Territory study, andsuggested ways of using Natura 2000 as a regionaldevelopment tool. Luc Dries, WWF Belgium, focused on


SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS

generating local awareness and debate, based onexperiences gained in the Pond Complex region ofCentral Limburg. The presentations were followed by a‘response to the presentations’ from Jacqui Cuff, RuralHorizons, notably identifying the key conditions forrealising benefits.

Identifying the socio-economic benefitsof Natura 2000Patrick ten Brink, Senior Fellow, IEEP

Patrick ten Brink presented the context for and approachto IEEP’s and WWF’s work on promoting the socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000. The core of the workinvolved six case studies, which focused on a bottom-upsite-specific analysis of the potential socio-economicbenefits of Natura 2000, with insights obtained throughextensive stakeholder discussions and workshops, backedup by regional expertise and analysis. The aim was togenerate a common understanding of existing andpotential benefits for each of the six sites. The lessonsgained from this local work have been drawn together inthe Conference background report, and can be use tosupport activities in many of the current 15,000 or sosites making up Natura 2000. The case studies can alsobe read alongside the more global valuations of naturalsystems that have been made elsewhere (see Conferencebackground report).

Patrick ten Brink emphasised that benefits includeeconomic opportunities such as avoided costs for pre-treating drinking water or for flood control, resulting fromecosystem services. There are also economic benefits fromincreased tourism spend, such as the purchase of local(branded) products, further development of ecologicalfarming with associated revenue streams, as well as thepossibility to attract significant quantities of outsidefunding from national and EU sources to support sitemanagement. As for social benefits, proper developmentof the Natura 2000 sites can help in diversifyingemployment, lengthening employment periods, andretaining youth, labour and skills in the region. Natura2000 sites may be used as centres for teaching, mayattract volunteer support, and generate ‘simple’ healthand amenity benefits (through activities such as walking,fishing etc). While employment figures for individual sitesmay appear small (eg 100 jobs supported in the LilleVildmose in Denmark, if all Natura 2000 developmentopportunities are realised), they are significant for thelocal community. Furthermore, bearing in mind the15,000 Natura 2000 sites across the EU, benefits to theUnion as a whole are considerable.

Developing methods for identifyingbenefitsMichael Jungmeier, E-C-O Institut, Austria

Michael Jungmeier summarised the methodology usedby his Institute to calculate benefits in the case of theNatura 2000 site ‘Steirische Grenzmur’ (Austrian casestudy). His presentation showed the value of providing anin-depth and honest analysis of the sectors which maywin or lose in light of Natura 2000 designation, usingboth optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. This analyticalevaluation was complemented by extensive stakeholderconsultation, both as an input to the analysis as well as totest the robustness of the results. Two Austrianstakeholder workshops focused on how to minimise anycosts and risks associated with Natura 2000 designation,for example, by clear zonal planning for continued gravelextraction. The workshops were also used to identifyopportunities inherent in the Natura 2000 site, and waysin which these can be embraced and the benefitsrealised.

Using Natura 2000 as a developmenttoolPeteris Strautins, WWF Latvia

Peteris Strautins presented the case study area of Ainazitown and its rural territory (ATRT) in Northern Latvia. Thesite offers great ecological potential, opportunities forsocial and economic rural development and increasedemployment. The area includes River Salaca, which is animportant salmonoid river, and also a prospective Natura2000 site. One of the tools for promoting the sustainabledevelopment of this area is sound tourism. The prospectof revenue generated by tourism can encourage the localpopulation to pay more attention to environmentalproblems and may lead to a change in attitudes. Forinstance, there is already growing opposition towardsillegal salmon fishing in the region. Revenue from tourismcan also be channelled into environmental protectionactivities, thus enhancing further the attraction of theregion. The prospect of development generated bytourism may also influence decision-making at municipallevel in a positive way. Mr Strautins provided an examplefrom nearby Staicele town, where plans for theconstruction of a hydro-electric dam were cancelled forthis reason.

The main tourist attractions in the area are the SalacaRiver, with its fishing and boating opportunities, Ainazibeach, and two museums in Ainazi town. Approximately



20,000 people visit ATRT annually, and the number ofvisitors is growing by approximately 7% each year. About1.8% of local revenue and a similar share of employmentis generated through the tourism sector. These sharescould increase to about 3.5% in the next 5 years, ifgrowth continues at the current pace (and expenditureper tourist growths in line with the fast growth of Latvia’sGDP). If tourism is actively promoted, shares could alsogrow to about 8% in the respective period.

Generating local awareness and debateLuc Dries, WWF Belgium

Luc Dries outlined the process used by WWF Belgium indiscussing socio-economic benefits with localstakeholders. In order to avoid suspicion, and to collect asmuch information as possible, meetings were organisedwith groups of similar stakeholders, or with individuals,allowing direct contact and more time for in depth andprivate discussions, thereby creating a relationship oftrust and mutual understanding.

Nonetheless, WWF Belgium had to face someconsiderable communication problems with certainprivate landowners. Individuals used the occasion toventilate their frustrations, showing little interest in thebroader objectives of the case study. It was found thatmost people were poorly informed about the selectionand designation criteria, about the restrictions thatdesignation might create on further managementpractices, about the financial implications of designation,and about potential opportunities of Natura 2000. Suchlack of information leads to uncertainty, creatingunnecessary resistance towards new developments. Thiscan hinder progress and innovative solutions to possiblecosts. A key lesson from the Belgian experience is thatauthorities should be more proactive in communicatingrequirements and opportunities under the Natura 2000scheme on a regular basis. In order to create broad publicsupport, ownership and a platform for the values ofnature, such communication should not be limited toone-off events, but should constitute an open andcontinuous dialogue.

Key conditions for realising benefitsJacqui Cuff, Rural Horizons

Jacqui Cuff responded to the preceding presentations,looking in particular at ways to ensure benefits aregenerated more widely and more routinely. Rural areasface numerous challenges, including aging populations,agricultural dependence/subsidy culture, remoteness/

access issues and a declining skills base. Positivedevelopment will often depend on a closer partnershipbetween NGOs and key stakeholders affected by Natura2000. In addition to the usual interest groups, keystakeholders include community groups and sometimes,key individuals. In practice, this requires capacity buildingwith regards to the value of natural assets in supportingsocial and economic development. Ms Cuff stressed thatthere needs to be more ‘participation’ on the ground.This involves active involvement of stakeholders indeveloping options for rural development within Natura2000 sites. Mere consultation on pre-prepared documentsis not enough. The principle of ‘active involvement’ ofstakeholders is now enshrined in the Water FrameworkDirective, and lessons can be learnt from this for Natura2000, particularly, but not exclusively, in wetland sites.Care, however, does need to be taken to managestakeholder expectations, as these need to be realisticand need to be followed by action.

Keys to success include:

● closer inter-linkages between social, economic andenvironmental objectives and opportunities;

● blocking leakages from the local economy and addingvalue to Natura 2000 products;

● using innovation and imagination in projects andpolicies;

● providing adequate rural services to maintain ruralcommunities within Natura 2000 sites;

● securing active involvement and real stakeholderparticipation; and

● providing training in both new and traditional skills.

Financial support is also crucial. We are currently in a‘pump priming’ culture, where development aid is oftentargeted at initial capital investment projects rather thansupporting longer-term revenue costs. There is a need toadopt a new approach focused on regenerating areas inthe long-term, and making small-scale and non-capitalinvestment projects mainstream, rather than ‘add-ons’ toagricultural and regional policies. Enlargement will placeadditional pressures on limited financial resources, andmakes it even more critical that funding is used in a waythat secures maximum long-term economic sustainability.


A key point in the discussions was that the Natura2000 network often establishes public benefits at



some private cost. The issue is not just to understandthe level of benefits, but to whom and under whatcircumstances these benefits accrue. Similarly, it isimportant to understand the level of costs, and whofaces them. This allows one to identify who are thewinners and losers, in many ways building on theapproach adopted by the Austrian case study.

A related issue concerns funding or compensationrelating to the management of Natura 2000. This isfrequently a grey area, which many wish to seeclarified. In relation to Natura 2000, it may bepreferable to talk of ‘incentives’ or ‘payments’, ratherthan ‘compensation’ or ‘subsidies’. After all, theemphasis should be on private parties performingpublic services for which they are being rewarded.Delegates also noted the need for funding that issecure over the long-term, to guarantee theappropriate management of sites and themaintenance of conservation values into the future.

The point was made that in the EU, the approach todesignation and compensation has beeninappropriate. There is a tendency for site to bedesignated and only subsequently, a discussion ofwhy this designation has occurred and what type ofcompensation might be made available as aconsequence. There is an opportunity to avoid thismistake in the Candidate Countries, given thatproposed site lists have not yet been drawn up.However, engaging in consultation and then draftingthese lists would present a considerable challenge,given the time-constraints and the many otherpriorities facing the new Member States.

Finally, there was some discussion of rural serviceprovision, which was noted as being key for ruralareas. Population retention in rural areas is linked towhether there is at least a minimum serviceinfrastructure accessible (eg post office, schools andchurches). In relation to skill retention, it wasunderlined that preserving old skills was equallyimportant as attracting new skills. However, lots oftraditional skills relevant to high nature valuefarming are being lost as older generations disappear.

SESSION 3: REALISING THEBENEFITSThe aim of Session 3, chaired by Jane Dalgleish of theScottish Executive, was to explore in greater detail thesocio-economic benefits of Natura 2000, building onlessons learnt within the 6 project case studies, but alsodrawing on good practice from other regions. The Sessioncommenced with a presentation from Jouni Paavola ofthe University of East Anglia, exploring the global valueof nature, based on the findings of a recent researchproject. This was followed by three parallel workinggroups: i) Generating economic benefits through Natura2000 management; ii) Marketing the Natura 2000 brand;and iii) Natura 2000 as an asset for regionaldevelopment. In each of these, good practice wasdiscussed (how to make good practice standard practice),as well factors affecting the potential for benefits. Thisincluded discussions on the barriers associated withpromoting benefits, and how these could be addressed(What can we do now? What needs to change to makethis happen? How do we get people on board). Theresults of each of the break-out sessions were presentedback to the plenary, and followed by a general discussion.

The global value of natureJouni Paavola, University of East Anglia

Jouni Paavola presented the results of a literature reviewon the values associated with conserving intact orrelatively unmodified units of key biomes across theworld. The study compared the difference in the value ofthe economic benefits provided by wild ecosystems andof the value of those same ecosystems when convertedto human use. According to Paavola, a single year’shabitat conversion costs in the order of $250 billion peryear, in net terms. The overall benefit/cost ratio of aneffective global programme for the conservation ofremaining wild nature is thus at least 100:1. The mainpoints raised in the presentation concerned ways ofvaluing nature, importantly including caveats, thedifferent levels of benefits arising in relation to differenthabitat types (temperate forests and rangelands, tropicalforests, temperate wetlands and mangroves and coralreefs), and trends and costs of conservation. Mr Paavolaconcluded that the evidence strongly suggests thatconservation and sustainable use are often economicallymore feasible use options for marginal units of a resourcethan their conversion or intensive use. Existing valuationstudies do not serve well environmental decision-making



and management; the distribution of multiple benefitsand costs should be explored further in future studies.More attention should also be paid to institutions thatrealise multiple-use benefits, so that stronger incentivescan be created for conservation.

WORKING GROUP 1:GENERATING ECONOMIC BENEFITSTHROUGH NATURA 2000MANAGEMENT

This session was structured around two presentations –one by Aldina Franco, Centre for Ecology, Evolution andConservation, University of East Anglia, which focused onPortuguese experience, and the other by Luis Suarez,WWF Spain/Adena which focused on the Spanishexperience. The presentations were followed by anextensive debate, with the main conclusions noted below.

Targeting agri-environment schemes atNatura 2000 in PortugalAldina Franco, Centre for Ecology, Evolution andConservation, University of East Anglia

Aldina Franco introduced the ‘Castro Verde Zonal Plan’,an agri-environment scheme established for the CastroVerde Special Protection Area as part of a LIFE project runby LPN (a Portuguese nature conservation organisation).The project involved local farmers, schools, and otherlocal community members, in the protection of steppebirds. Ms Franco outlined some of the key factors thatmade the project a success. Co-operation between allstakeholders was essential, with one NGO working withthe pro-environment local council to develop a local andregional territorial plan for zoning. The plan was helpfulin identifying areas suitable for continued activity, areasremaining open for development and areas needingstricter protection. In addition, a large number ofseminars were held to explain the project aims andproposed results to farmers associations. Thesediscussions helped identify and put in place good farmingpractice, eg ploughing after 15 March to allow eggs tohatch, harvesting after 15 June, etc. The site alsoattracted LIFE funding, allowing the purchase of 1,700hectares of (low fertile) land, and the provision ofbreeding towers. Education plans were developmentwith local schools, including organised visits. AldinaFranco noted that other councils in the area were lessinterested in developing similar projects, and suggestedthat this was likely to reflect the fact that other regions

are more fertile, and thus incentives to increase productiongreater. This highlights the importance of understandingearly on who are the winners and losers of site protection.

Exploring options for the Riaza RiverGorges, SpainLuis Suarez, WWF Spain/Adena

Luis Suarez introduced some of the main points of theSpanish case study. The concerned area is home to thelargest population of griffon vultures in Europe.Regarding the socio-economic context, he noted that theeconomically active human population in the area makesup less than 30% of the total. Given a significant loss ofyouth to urban areas and in the absence of local industry,the average age of local villagers is comparatively high.As regards farming activities, the area is famous for itssheep and extensive grazing practices. People commonlydrive 1.5 hours from Madrid to enjoy the products andlocal cuisine. Tourism is increasing in the region, withavailable accommodation facilities having increased from5 to 11 establishments over the last few years. There is asignificant potential to further develop sound tourismactivity, as well as to build on existing extensive agricultureto develop ecologically accredited practices and products.Extending the product range to include more locallybranded products is one possibility. The site has facilitatedtraining and awareness raising of the local population,and there has been substantial use of volunteers, withover 500 WWF/Adena volunteers engaged over theyears. There is also a new Interpretation Centre of theNatural World (Leader project).


Annali Bamber-Jones reported back to the plenaryon the main points arising from the working groupdiscussion, as follows.

TIMELY INFORMATION From the Portugueseexperience the group concluded that it is importantto identify early those likely to be proactive orpositively reactive. Landowners’ fear that they willbe affected by designation can be exacerbated by alack of prior discussion about the implications ofNatura 2000 designation. In Basel, banks decidedthat Natura 2000 sites would be worth 30% less (interms of land value) after designation. This couldperhaps have been avoided, had the opportunitiesof Natura 2000 been adequately communicated tothe banks in the first instance.



ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS The Spanish experienceunderlined the need for practical organisation thatis responsive to people’s individual circumstances. Inthis case, starting meetings in the evening (19.00)facilitated stakeholder attendance at events. Thebest point of influence are not always thefarmers/landowners, but sometimes their wives andchildren, as well as relevant organisations or othernetworks. These can usefully be included inparticipation and consultation exercises.Furthermore, work in Hungary and Sloveniademonstrates the value of ‘leaders’ or ‘champions’to liase between government authorities and locals.Following privatisation, the number of farmers hasincreased, making the task of communicating moredifficult. Respected local individuals can helpchampion the cause instead. In Austria, Denmarkand Portugal zoning has proved to be a valuableinstrument for communicating the different typesof activities that can continue after site designation.Consideration should be given to promoting this asa constructive instrument for broader use.

ECONOMIC SIGNALS/FINANCE It was noted thatthe first pillar of the CAP offers 100% financing,while the second pillar offers only co-financing,giving different signals to farmers. Similarly, inNatura 2000 sites, there is greater scope for supportfor forestry than for sustainable agriculture. Existingincentive structures need reviewing, to ensure theright signals are being given. This could usefully bedone at site level, facilitating the assessment of localwinners and losers, and of the likely impact ofdifferent incentives on their behaviour.

In the long run, direct subsidies are expected todisappear. It is important, therefore, to identify thepublic goods/services provided or conserved bymanaging sites, including the retention of eco-systemservices, and to allocate payment for the provision ofsuch services. Moreover, sites should not be expectedto be fully self-financing, but should rather try tomaximise benefits only where this is sustainable.Government support should also be made availablefor public service provision, complementing otherincome streams.

WORKING GROUP 2:MARKETING THE NATURA 2000 BRAND

The Natura 2000 Green Days:experiences in the NetherlandsRoelof Heringa, Staatsbosbeheer, Netherlands

Roelof Heringa is a district manager for Staatsbosbeheer,the largest nature management organisation in theNetherlands, as well as working to promote Natura 2000.His presentation outlined the way in which EUROSITE ispromoting Natura 2000 to the general public, under the‘Green Days’ initiative. The idea of Green Days is tospread the message of Natura 2000 throughout the EU.The aim is to reach as many people as possible, informingthe public about the importance of Natura 2000 for theirown local environment but also to draw the link to othersites within the network. EUROSITE members wereencouraged to organise events that would arousecuriosity and generate discussion, and to encourage afeeling of pride in these sites.

EUROSITE produced a ‘toolkit’ of promotional materials,such as leaflets in eight languages, posters, banners andinformation for site managers explaining the importanceof Natura 2000. This initiative was supported by GreenDays teams in many countries. Overall, 431 events tookplace under the Green Days banner; 85 in theNetherlands, involving 31 sites. Throughout Europe over22,000 people participated in Green Days 2002.

Creating a Natura 2000 brand for‘Vildmose potatoes’Mogens Ove Madsen, Aalborg University, Denmarkand Uffe Gjøl Sørensen, WWF Denmark

Mogens Ove Madsen presented an overview of the casestudy area, Lille Vildmose, which is in North JutlandCounty and covers approximately 78 km2. The site is oneof the largest remaining, continuous nature areas inDenmark, despite the fact that peat mining has been acentral activity in the area since the 18th century. Thearea considered for landscape protection is broadlysimilar to the territory considered for Natura 2000designation. Lille Vildmose is particularly suitable forNatura 2000 designation because of its active raisedbogs, species-rich commons, grass moors on more or lessacid soil and alder and ash woods. Designation wouldpromote the restoration of degraded raised bog. Thecentral part of the bog is currently still used for peat



mining and farming. The phasing out of these practiceswill result in the loss of a small number of workplaces,and may cause claims for compensation. However, thesecan be compensated by increased employmentelsewhere. This could include more sustainableemployment in nature conservation, grazing guilds,tourism, education and research. There could also be adifferent pattern of settlement as a result of the uniquenatural environment.

Uffe Gjøl Sørensen outlined ways in which the uniquequality of the local nature offers potential for brandinginitiatives. Two local products already illustrate the keyelements of branding. Firstly, promoting a clear identityof the product: potatoes produced on fields at the fringeof the Lille Vildmose are already sold under the name‘Vildmose kartofler’ (i.e. potatoes from the ‘Wild Bog’), awell-known product in Denmark. Secondly, theimportance of high quality: the extensive raised bogsupports extensive heather and therefore supports agood local production of heather honey, which isrecognized locally and nationally as a product of thehighest quality. The local discussion on the benefits ofNatura 2000 has focused on the need for a local strategyof how to develop such new initiatives further,diversifying income and improving organisation.


Sandra Jen reported back to the plenary on themain points arising from the working groupdiscussion, as follows.

WHAT DO WE PROMOTE? The ultimate objectivemust be to ensure the effective conservation of thesite, and specifically achieving the ecological objectivesagreed for the site. However, labelling/brandingallows us to better engage with people, bringing inthe social pillar of sustainable development.

SHORT TERM ACTIONS The idea of labelling forNatura 2000 is still only in its infancy, but there isclear potential to generate further benefits fromNatura 2000. The Green Days 2002 initiative was asuccessful first attempt at labelling or brandingNatura 2000. It showed the need for a clear messageabout what Natura 2000 is. Branding initiatives needto be underpinned by precise definitions, so that thepublic is confident about what it is buying into.A label can be applied on the basis of a site’s valueand its management (regional identity), to theproducts produced on the site, or to the servicesprovided by the site. There should be a

comprehensive review of these issues, followed by astrategy or guidelines championed by the EuropeanCommission. These could build on other initiatives,such as the Charter being developed by theCommission Working Group on CommunicatingNatura 2000.

GETTING PEOPLE ON BOARD There are argumentsfor a Natura 2000 label to refer to both local sitesand the European Natura 2000 network. Such a labelcould be attractive to local people and visitors to thearea. There is a need to develop the idea of localidentity, to engage people’s emotions, and to useNatura 2000 products and services to engagepeople’s curiosity. The Lille Vildmose products providea good starting point for developing labels in thatregion. However, local initiatives and good practicesneed to be captured in a comprehensive strategy,and promoted in other parts of the EU.

WORKING GROUP 3:NATURA 2000 AS AN ASSET FORREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Natura 2000 as an asset for regionaldevelopmentStephen Warman, Team Manager Cornwall and Islesof Scilly, English Nature

Stephen Warman outlined English Nature’s Wildlife andGeo Tourism Initiative. Tourism was defined as aneconomic activity involving recreation based (generally)on environmental, social or cultural aspects of adestination. There is a huge range of specialist tourist‘niches’, including eco-tourism, where the recreationalactivity is based on the active appreciation of wildanimals, plants or habitats. By some estimates tourismis now the world’s largest industry, generating anestimated $3.6 trillion and accounting for one in twelvejobs worldwide. Because of this high level of activityand the potential impact on natural resources,biodiversity and host communities it is important thattourism is developed according to the principles ofsustainable development.

Tourism in protected areas should be developedsustainably, both on-site and for the wider environment.A simple checklist was proposed as a starting point forauditing sustainability in tourism development. The threehead points are access, accreditation and action.



‘Access’ includes: physical access – providing low impacttransport and appropriate links to the coast andcountryside, access for the old, young and disabled, aswell as for minority and disadvantaged groups. Accessshould also be year-round where this can support jobsecurity and local economies; intellectual access –including interpretation facilities and visitor centres, andinformation on the area’s cultural and environmentalhistory and its future; and inspirational access – notablyincluding views and open spaces, access to ‘wild’ places,allowing appreciation of the seasons and wind, andrecreation, sport and leisure.

‘Accreditation’ is a tool that can be used to raisestandards in environmental sustainability. Awards couldbe linked, for example, to the provision of transportinfrastructure, efficient energy use and wastemanagement, and local sustainably sourced food. Onemight even have ‘green visas’ to accredit visitorsthemselves.

‘Action’ includes: identifying priorities for biodiversity,interpretation facilities, ensuring visitor ‘payback’ so thatthe tourism revenue could be captured for the benefit ofthe site, developing policies for green spaces, andreviewing transport provisions. Tourism Action Plans forNatura 2000 sites should be considered.

Generating tourism on and aroundLake Peipsi, EstoniaRein Kuresoo, Estonian Fund for Nature

Rein Kuresoo presented the Estonian case study ofEmajõe Suursoo Mire and Piirissaar Island. The areacomprises a more or less large, flat wilderness area withan integral system of different types of peatland, riversand lakes, coasts and an island. The total permanentpopulation in the area is 160, although this increases twoor threefold during the summer. The major source ofincome for local people is fishing and onion growing(especially on Piirissaar Island). Importantly, thepopulation on Piirissaar Island forms one of the mostcompact Old Believers community, which has beenpresent on the island for more than 200 years. Thiscommunity makes up a very conservative religion-oriented society, defying consumerism.

Estonia has a very rich natural heritage and is one of themost rewarding birding sites in Europe. Consequently,the country is gaining popularity as a nature tourismdestination. Presently, nature tourism development inEstonia is concentrated around the popular tourist

destinations (eg Western-Estonia with its famousMatsalu nature reserve). In these regions tourismfacilities and services are relatively well developed.Many other valuable areas lie outside the populardestinations and are, at present, more difficult to reach.Since increases in eco-tourism are expected, it willbecome important to improve facilities and services inthese destinations. This will help to meet the demandand dissipate the tourist load. While there is somepotential for an increase in tourism activity in the casestudy area, this should be taken forwarded withresponsibility and with respect for the needs of thelocal community.


DEVELOPING APPROPRIATELY There was agreementthat development needs to be tailored to the naturalvalues that sites are to protect. In practice, this meansthat some sites will be more suited to regionaldevelopment than others. It is important that a siteby site approach is taken, identifying the morerobust sites and areas within sites, and defining theircarrying capacities. The concept of zoning is a usefulinstrument here.

In similar vein, prospects for tourism or otherdevelopment will differ from region to region. Insome regions there will be greater scope to attracttourists, particularly if the Natura site is just one ofseveral attractions in the area. For other sites, it willbe very difficult to develop tourism.

OFFERING A QUALITY EXPERIENCE Operatorsincreasingly recognise the need for quality in relationto tourism and other outdoor sectors. Natura 2000sites should contribute to the quality of theexperience in visiting local areas. These are qualitiesthat are available year round. In Spain, the regionsare starting to offer Natura 2000 as a visitorattraction.

STRATEGIC PLANNING Natural values need to befully reflected in regional development plans, as wellas sector specific plans such as tourism plans. Thisshould ensure that the regional economy benefitsfrom the site’s assets, but also ensure that regionaldevelopment or sectoral interests do not underminesite integrity. Individual operators/investors, forexample tourism operators and corporations, need todevelop their own strategic vision, within whichnature will almost certainly play a central role.



PAYING FOR NATURA 2000 To be effective, Natura2000 sites need management and restoration. Thisneeds to be placed within a broader regionaldevelopment context, emphasising the value ofnature both with regards to strengthening thecharacter of local areas, and in terms of benefitinglocal economies and attracting greater fundingopportunities. Some users, such as tourists or hunters,may also be benefiting directly from on-site activities,in which case there may be scope for ‘user charges’.

SESSION 4: GETTING THEMESSAGE ACROSS

Communication and cooperation inNatura 2000: lessons from the Flemishregion of BelgiumEls Martens, Nature Direction, Ministry of theFlemish Community

Els Martens noted that conservation measures for Natura2000 must take account of scientific, as well as economic,social and cultural requirements. This assumes the fullparticipation and support of all partners involved. Natura2000 has implications for other non-environmentalsectors, and key concerns must therefore also be reflectedin sectoral actions. Ensuring appropriate implementationrequires an understanding of the Habitats Directive andan appreciation of the opportunities and benefits. Thiscan be achieved through communication, includingawareness raising about why nature is a commonconcern. Also critical are participation and consultation,based on mutual understanding and trust, and thedevelopment of partnerships.

General public awareness-raising initiatives have includedtraining on the Directive, including Article 6 procedures.At the site level, project brochures and newslettersprovide project specific information, setting out the long-term vision for the site, information on partners andconsultation processes and financial aspects. In somecases, there is also action specific communication, eg inrelation to species protection projects. Each site also hasits own web page. Partnerships are promoted through anumber of additional means, notably agri-environmentmeasures, nature project contracts and municipal naturedevelopment projects. However, much more needs to bedone in this respect and others, such as increasing media

interest and political support, identifying more benefits ofNatura 2000, and improving information exchange onthese. Other sectors also need to be more activelyinvolved in communication action.

Natura 2000 and the Green SpiderNetworkDorte Bennedbaek, member of the European GreenSpider Network, Danish Ministry of Environment

Dorte Bennedbaek introduced the Green Spider Network,which was set up in 1995 to meet increasing demandsfor information and communication. The Network wasalso a response to emerging rights relating to access toenvironmental information. The Green Spider Networkcomprises representatives from environmentaladministrations in the EU Member States, CandidateCountries and their neighbours. The EuropeanCommission and the European Environment Agency alsoparticipate in the network. It is a key communicationnetwork on environmental issues in the EU, stimulatingcommunication processes, supporting liaison betweenthe EU and national administrations, exchanging lessonsand good practice examples, etc.

The annual Green Spider meeting in 2002 focused onNatura 2000, examining why Natura 2000 is not ‘loved’.A piece of research concluded that there is a generalpassivity towards the network. What is needed is localcommunication and cooperation, stakeholder involvementand acceptance. The method of communicating has tobe relevant to the target group, potentially including on-site meetings for face-to-face communication. DorteBennedbaek encouraged those looking to communicatethe socio-economic benefits to make contact with thenational communication expert in the network (seewww.ubavie.gv.at/greenspider). This could provide avaluable resource for encouraging the properdevelopment of initiatives in and around Natura 2000.


It is clear that there is still insufficient informationreaching the general public, about Natura 2000 andspecific sites. It was suggested that bookletsdescribing Natura 2000 across Europe and itsimportance would be useful. People should knowwhat the values are and why they should visit orotherwise support these sites.

As regards communicating benefits, one delegateemphasised the importance of getting the message



right. Expectations should not be raised, butcommunicators should be aware of the differentbenefits that can exist, possibly supported by goodexamples of how these benefits are working in otherparts of Europe.

It is important that different communication effortsinform each other, in this case the Green SpiderNetwork and the Commission Working Group onCommunicating Natura 2000. It is apparent that infact there is no direct contact between these twoinitiatives, an issue that should be explored in future.

Several delegates also questioned the approach ofthe Flemish Community, which was creating differenttypes of sites and networks and thus complicatingmatters even more.

SESSION 5: GETTING THECONDITIONS RIGHT

Natura 2000 – a new focus forEU funding programmes?Astrid Kaemena, DG Environment, on behalf of theArticle 8 (Co-financing) Working Group

Astrid Kaemena presented the main results of the FinalReport of the Working Group on Article 8 of the HabitatsDirective. Article 8 of the Directive contains provisions forCommunity co-financing of sites containing priorityhabitats or species, reflecting the exceptional burden thatthe Directive places on the Member States. The WorkingGroup approached the issue more broadly, however,assessing the total financial costs associated with themanagement of the Natura 2000 network as a whole(including bird sites) to range between 13.5 and 15.7billion per year for the next ten years.

Astrid Kaemena outlined the key recommendations onways of securing additional Community co-financing.Many existing instruments are potentially relevant butcomplex and not geared to Natura 2000, with LIFENature the main exception. Significant policy changes aretherefore needed, with the Working Group suggestingthat existing funds be modified, including the RuralDevelopment Fund and Structural Funds, and the LIFEinstrument. Significant change would not be possiblebefore 2006/7, since the overall EU budget is fixed until2006. However, the Mid Term Review of the CommonAgriculture Policy may give possibilities as early as

2004/5. In the short term, the Group recommended thata clear reference to nature conservation be introduced aspart of the mid-term review of the Structural Funds.

Putting Natura 2000 at the heart ofthe CAPThierry de l’Escaille, European Landowners’Organisation

Thierry de l’Escaille noted the importance of providingfinancing for Natura 2000 as a whole, and not justisolated sites as this would mean that Natura 2000 wouldremain a dead letter. The future enlargement of the EUwill simply reinforce the need for a broader, morecomprehensive approach to financing Natura 2000.Environmental benefits should be regarded as supportingsocio-economic objectives in the use of agriculture funds.For example, it should be possible to fund naturemanagement, which would support farmers’ incomes.When seen in this context, investment in Natura 2000management would lead to direct economic and socialbenefits even where it does not directly generate jobs orenhance incomes; the added benefit is in promoting thedevelopment of new activities.

However, Thierry de l’Escaille pointed out that agriculturalactivity needs to be possible in Natura 2000 areas,otherwise the eligibility for the rural development fundsshould be questioned. Access to funds by farmers andlandowners should be clear. The Rural DevelopmentRegulation should assist the development of new conceptssuch as ‘environmental farms’ that could providereservoirs of good environmental practice. They could actas demonstration farms for extension of environmentalland management on more conventional crop and livestockunits. A funding scheme was also suggested, to encourageagricultural and forestry land-use practices that provideincreased carbon sinks, and an EU-wide scheme based onarea payments to meet environmental standards.


There was considerable discussion of the issue ofco-financing, and whether the 33.5–35.7 billion/yearfigures were realistic. Nicholas Hanley emphasisedthat Natura 2000 was a major undertaking, coveringa total territory of the size of Germany.

It was emphasised that not all of the necessaryfunding was expected from the EU; the MemberStates also have to provide significant additional co-financing themselves. Tony Long also noted that



Natura 2000 covers already 15% of the EU territory,and the estimated funding requirements representedless than 10% of the annual CAP and StructuralFunds budgets.

CLOSING SUMMARY

Building on the El Teide conclusions?Nicholas Hanley, Head of Unit, DG Environment

Nicholas Hanley drew some conclusions at the end of theConference, noting that the event had been very usefulin generating discussion on the important issue ofpromoting benefits of Natura 2000. Natura 2000 is anambitious instrument, as reflected by the fact that 15 percent of all Commission complaints are related to natureprotection legislation. But this also suggests that EUnature policy is something that citizens understand andrealise to be important.

We are now at the phase of implementation and need toengage social aspects more strongly. There has to besufficient courage to look at Natura 2000 from differentperspectives, including from economic and socialdevelopment perspectives. At the site level, managersneed to give greater consideration to off-siteopportunities and interests. The Article 8 Working Grouphad involved a wider range of stakeholders, includinglandowners and NGOs. Its recommendations are morerealistic and more challenging as a result.

The issue of financing Natura 2000 needs to be at theheart of the debate on the EU budget, placing naturewithin a socio-economic context. Many benefits can anddo accrue directly from Natura 2000 sites, leading towider benefits for communities due to the ‘multipliereffect’ discussed during the Conference. We should notexaggerate these benefits, or lose sight of the naturalvalues, but increasingly there is evidence to show thatinvestment in nature conservation and Natura 2000 haswider positive impacts. Rural development is not onlyabout agriculture, but involves a mosaic of activities. Theoutbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in the UK providedevidence of this, showing the economic importance oftourism and recreation sectors. Leisure time is growingand Natura 2000 is well-placed to benefit from andsupport this growth.

The challenge is to make the most of the assets we have.Through communication and participation, people need

to realise the full values of these assets and how tobenefit from them in the long term. Natura 2000areas are linked to the people who live and work thereand their participation is essential to maintaining thenatural values of sites, as well as realising socio-economic benefits.

Finally, there is an EU political commitment to haltingbiodiversity loss by 2010, agreed at the Göteborg Summitin 2001. If the EU does not implement Natura 2000, thenthe Göteborg commitment will simply not be met.



SUMMARYThe Conference brought together over 100 people fromacross the EU and the new Member States, and fromnational and EU administrations and agencies, NGOs,economic sectors and landowners. The aim was tofacilitate the exchange of ideas on how better topromote the range of benefits that can potentially arisein relation to Natura 2000. Administrators andstakeholders from the Candidate Countries, in particular,benefited from this exchange of experience, and are in aposition to learn from the best practices and the mistakesthat existing Member States have made.

Through the plenary presentations and discussions in theworking group, it was clear that promoting thebenefits of Natura 2000 is recognised as a keychallenge for the future of the network. Many ruralareas throughout Europe are facing a social crisis, andthere is a need to rethink the relationship between natureand rural economies, reconnecting the two. TheConference represented an important first step in thisprocess, and needs to be followed by further initiatives atthe local, regional, national and EU level.

There is a growing body of work seeking tocatalogue and where possible quantify the socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000. This includes the sixproject case studies (see Section 1). Apart from helping tosecure European biodiversity, benefits include directemployment and income generation, contribution tohealth and recreation, and benefits to society as a whole.While employment figures for individual sites may appearsmall, benefits to the Union as a whole are significant.There are also essential ecosystem services which aresafeguarded by Natura 2000, resulting in real savings tothe public purse and to corporate interests, such as watercompanies. The identification and quantification of thebenefits, including associated methodologies, deservesadditional attention.

Some benefits accrue at the individual or local level,others at the regional level and to society as a whole.Actual benefits will depend on the individual site, interms of its robustness, its accessibility, and thesurrounding environment in which it is located. Effortsto generate benefits should not compromise thenatural values of sites. In practice, this means that somesites will be more suited to social or economic activitiesthan others. It is important that a site-by-site approach istaken, assessing the site’s potential and defining carryingcapacities. A proper zoning system for each site, withclear objectives and rules for socio-economic usage, canavoid repeated conflicts of interests.

Supporting regional and rural development

In seeking to generate benefits, sites should be seenfirmly within the context of regional development.Regional or spatial planning, including zoning,can be an important tool to secure strong linkagesand coherence between social, economic andenvironmental objectives.

Regions are not equally well placed to benefit fromNatura 2000. In some regions, it is appropriate to focuson using existing strengths and qualifications, diversifyingincome sources and rural amenities, and prioritisingpublic involvement. For other rural areas, there will be agreater need to build capacity. Rural service provision andskills retention will always be key, however.

There is clear potential to use labelling or branding, tobetter engage with people and to generate added value forNatura 2000 related products or services. Labels could beapplied on the basis of a site’s value and its management,to the products produced on the site or to the servicesprovided by the site. There should be a comprehensivereview of these issues, followed by a Commission strategyor guidelines. These could build on other initiatives, suchas the Charter being developed by the CommissionWorking Group on Communicating Natura 2000.


3. Summary and Ways Forward

Note that there is no single prescription for all sites, butthere is a growing body of best practice examples,and enormous scope to extend such good practice tomany regions around Europe. Innovation andimagination will remain critical in developing projects andpolicies. Local initiatives and good practices need to becaptured in a comprehensive strategy, and promoted inother parts of the EU.

Strengthening local governance

There is clear scope to strengthen local governance,including improved communication with the public andstakeholders, and active public participation in themanagement process.

At the outset, there is a need for raised awareness ofthe value of designated sites, of the ultimate aim ofthe Natura 2000 network, and its potential in supportingsocial and economic development. The right messageneeds to be communicated to the general public, butalso to the actors at the various levels at which thebenefits arise. Other sectors also need to be more activelyinvolved in communication.

Better communication channels need to beestablished between local authorities and stakeholders,including corporate interests and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). Community leaders or‘champions’ can be effective in communicating to groupsof stakeholders. The proper communication of a precisezonal planning, which clearly describes what types ofactivities can be allowed in each zone, can be a majorinstrument to get certain restrictions accepted by thelocal stakeholders and to raise public support for Natura2000. It may be desirable to outline different ‘goodpractices’ in relation to communicating with differentgroups. Initiatives such as ‘Car Free Cities’ may provideuseful examples from other sectors.

Natura 2000 areas are linked to the people who live andwork there, and active public involvement indeveloping options for rural development within oraround Natura 2000 sites is essential. Open and earlydialogue is needed to create broad public support,ownership and promote the values of nature.Stakeholder expectations need to be realistic, however,and followed by action.

Financing

Natura 2000 is a major undertaking, with around15,000 sites, in total covering an area the size ofGermany. With enlargement, the span of the network is

expected to increase significantly. Sites should not beexpected to be fully self-financing, but should rather tryto maximise benefits only where this is sustainable.Significant additional funding will be needed topay for its proper management, estimated to be in theregion of 13.5 to 15.7 billion per year, for the next tenyears, for the existing Member States. Not all of thisfunding is expected from the EU; the Member States alsohave to provide significant additional co-financing. Thisfunding will in itself generate significant social andeconomic benefits.

Different funding streams are potentially available. Tomake EU regional aid and CAP funds more relevant, thereneeds to be a stronger focus on the long-termregeneration of rural areas and the promotion ofsmall-scale and non-capital investments. Greaterlevels of support should also be made available forongoing public service provision, complementing privateincome streams. Payments for managing sites need to becompetitive, so that nature management becomes arealistic option for landowners.

WAYS FORWARDThe conference presentations, discussions, andsupporting case studies have offered a wealth of ideas asto how the challenge of promoting the benefits of Natura2000 can best be met. These range from ‘small’ butinvaluable insights, such as the need to identify localindividuals who could ‘champion’ the path to socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000, to more broad policyinsights, such as the need for more ‘joined-up’ thinking inplanning, policies and financing. Each of these is worthyof serious consideration by stakeholders. From this longlist, IEEP and WWF have identified the following ten stepsas particularly important to further promote the benefitsof Natura 2000:

Promotional measures

● Strengthen the social and economic dimension ofnature conservation, including links with ruraldevelopment initiatives, eg within LEADER CommunityInitiatives. Local stakeholder workshops should explorethe links of the site to the social and economicdimension.

● Invest in cost/benefit methodologies and theirapplication, to provide information on individual tosociety-wide benefits from Natura 2000. This can


SUMMARY AND WAYS FORWARD

usefully be included as part of local stakeholderdiscussions and workshops, and indeed help clarifyappropriate, pragmatic and realistic developmentplans. Linkages with corporate interests, includingwater and tourism sectors, and SMEs should also beelaborated.

● Undertake a comprehensive review of labelling orbranding Natura 2000, leading to Commissionguidelines to support and encourage suitable labellinginitiatives. The aim is to get the sites working as motorsfor local and regional development throughout Europeand get acceptance of the site.

● The promotion of Natura 2000 benefits should besupported by concerted efforts to develop innovativeprojects, using the results to support exchange ofexperiences and good practice across the EU andCandidate Countries.

Communication measures

● Dissemination of booklets clarifying the basic aims ofthe Natura 2000 network, the values of individual sites,both in their own right and as part of the largernetwork, and their potentials and limitations. Thisshould include clear and accurate messages as regardsbenefits, including the link between local initiative andglobal benefits.

● Develop good practice guide with a ‘menu’ of ways ofcommunicating with stakeholders, including moredialogue on the socio-economic benefits of Natura2000 and its role as an integrated part of thesustainable development of local communities.

● Apply lessons from public participation under theWater Framework Directive, such as the legalobligation of Article 14 and the CommonImplementation Strategy guidance documents onpublic participation.

Integration of Natura 2000 within otherpolicies

● Ensure the proper integration of Natura 2000 withinother sectoral policies, notably agriculture andfisheries, transport and regional policies, includingthrough the appropriate application of impactassessment procedures.

● Ensure the revision of EU funding instruments, notablythe Structural Funds and CAP, reflects Natura 2000 andits financial needs. This should ensure security ofinitiative in the long-term, acknowledging the role of

Natura 2000 in sustainable regional and ruraldevelopment.

● Develop an initiative on land-use planning and Natura2000, leading to specific recommended actions onhow to strengthen the link between the two, includingintegrating Natura 2000 within planning instrumentsand the full use of zoning to clarify types of permittedactivities in and around sites.

The European Union and the ten new Member States arecommitted to halting the decline in biodiversity by 2010.If the ongoing work to implement Natura 2000 isreinforced in the ways suggested above, andcomplemented by the wealth of lessons of good practicenoted by speakers and participants and case studystakeholders, then this will make a substantialcontribution towards achieving the 2010 target. This willbe done in a way that will not only protect our naturalheritage, but also offer significant social and economicbenefits.

SUMMARY AND WAYS FORWARD



28 November 2002

14:00PART I: INTRODUCTION ANDSCENE SETTINGChair: David Baldock, IEEP

14:10a) Welcome and introductionsDavid Baldock, Director, IEEP

14:30b) Natura 2000 – state of playNicholas Hanley, Head of Nature andBiodiversity Unit, DGEnv, Commission

15:00c) Developing a vision for sustainablerural developmentKim Carstensen, CEO, WWF Denmark

d) Q&A to the Panel

16:00PART II: IDENTIFYING SOCIO-ECONOMICBENEFITSRoundtable presentations on the projectfindings, including the case studies. Followedby critique of studies and outline of waysforward.

16:00e) Identifying the socio-economic benefitsof Natura 2000 Patrick ten Brink, IEEP

16:15f) Roundtable on different Europeanexperiences –

Developing methods for identifyingbenefitsMichael Jungmeier, ECO Institut, Austria

Using Natura 2000 as a development toolPeteris Strautins, WWF Latvia

Generating local awareness and debateLuc Dries, WWF Belgium

17:15g) Key conditions for realising benefitsJacqui Cuff, Rural Horizons

h) Discussion

18:00 – CLOSE

29 November 2002

09:00PART III: REALISING THE BENEFITSChair: Jane Dalgleish, Scottish Executive

09:00i) The global value of natureJouni Paavola, University of East Anglia

09:20j) Introduction to break-out sessionThree parallel sessions to discuss and developideas; each with presentations on case studyexperience and best practice

09:30

1. Generating economic benefits throughNatura 2000 management –

Targeting agri-environment schemes atNatura 2000 in PortugalAldina Franco, Centre for Ecology, Evolutionand Conservation, University of East Anglia

Exploring options for the Riaza RiverGorges, SpainLuis Suarez, WWF Spain/Adena

2. Marketing the Natura 2000 brand –

The Natura 2000 Green Days: experiencesin the NetherlandsRoelof Heringa, Staatsbosbeheer, Netherlands

Creating a Natura 2000 brand for‘Vildmose potatoes’Mogens Ove Madsen, Aalborg University,Denmark

3. Natura 2000 as an asset for regionaldevelopment –

Natura 2000 as an asset for regionaldevelopmentStephen Warman, Team Manager Cornwalland Isles of Scilly, English Nature

Generating tourism on and around LakePeipsi, EstoniaRein Kuresoo, Estonian Fund for Natura

11:30k) Reporting back to plenary withconclusions

12:30 – LUNCH

14:00PART IV: GETTING THE MESSAGE ACROSSChair: Tony Long, WWF

14:00l) Communication and cooperation inNatura 2000: lessons from the Flemishregion of BelgiumEls Martens, Nature Direction, Ministry of theFlemish Community

14:20m) Natura 2000 and the Green SpiderNetworkDorte Bennedbaek, member of the EuropeanGreen Spider Network

15:00PART IV: GETTING THE CONDITIONS RIGHT

15:00n) Natura 2000 – a new focus for EUfunding programmes?Astrid Kaemena, DG Environment, on behalfof the Article 8 (Co-financing) Working Group

15:30o) Putting Natura 2000 at theheart of the CAPThierry de l’Escaille, European Landowners’Organisation

16:00p) Panel discussion

16:20q) Closing summary – building on theEl Teide conclusions?Nicholas Hanley, Head of Unit,DG Environment

16:30 – CLOSE

Annex I: Conference Programme

Promoting the social and economic benefits of Natura 2000European Conference, 28 and 29 November 2002.Brussels – Auditorium Maria Baers, Martelaarsplein 7


Vincent AttardNature Trust, [email protected]: P.O. Box 9, Valletta CMR 01, MaltaOffices: 11, Antonio Agius Street, Floriana

David BaldockIEEP, United [email protected] Bradley House, 52 Horseferry Rd,London SW1P 2AG

Annali Bamber-JonesA Rocha, [email protected]/o Dodoo, Rue G et J. Martin, 13; 1150Brussels

Hubert BedoretInter-Environnement Wallonie,[email protected] du Nord 6, 5000 Namur

Dorte BennedbaekDanish Ministry for the Environment,[email protected] Plads 4; DK-1200 Copenhagen K

Arjan BerkhuysenStichting Natuur en Milieu,The [email protected] 17, 3511KB Utrecht

David BeyenStichting Limburgs Landschap,[email protected] 39, 3350 Heusden-Zolder

Edouard-Alain BidaultCoordination Nationale Natura 2000,[email protected] Avenue de Ségur, 75007 Paris

Catherine BlinDirectrice scientifique des formations,Institut Eco-Conseil, [email protected] de Merckem 7, B-5000 Namur

Patricia BodeMinistry of Agriculture, NatureManagement and Fisheries, [email protected] 20401, 2500 EK The Hague

Dirk BogaertArteveldehogeschool, [email protected] 31, 9000 Gent

Jean Lois BosteelsRoyal Saint-Hubert Club de Belgique,[email protected] Avenue Fr Roosevelt, B-1050 Brussels

Brigitta BozsoWWF Hungary, HungaryNémetvölgyi út 78/B, 1124 [email protected];[email protected]

Charles ButlerStudent, [email protected] Tivoli Terrace North, Dun Laoghaire,Dublin

Kim CarstensenWWF Denmark, DenmarkRyesgade 3F, DK-2200 [email protected]

Tim ChristophersenIUCN, [email protected] Vergote 15; 1030 Brussels

Shirley ClerkinAn Taisce, [email protected] Hall, Back Lane, Dublin 8

Clare CoffeyIEEP, [email protected]. des Gaulois 18, 1040 Brussels

Alain CordonnierMinistire de la Region Wallonne,[email protected]/DNF 7 au Prince de Liege,5100 Namur

Desmond CroftonNational Association of RegionalGame Councils, [email protected] Sandford Rd., Ranglagh, Dublin

Jacqui CuffRural Horizons, United [email protected] Newtown, Potton, Bedfordshire,SG19 2QJ

Jane DalgleishThe Scottish Executive,United [email protected] and Habitats Unit, 1-H, VictoriaQuay, Leith, Edinburgh, EH6 6QQ

Alain De JamblinneSociété Royale Forestière de Belgique,[email protected] du Centre Bloc II; 1000 Bruxelles

Thierry De l’EscailleEuropean Landowner Organisation,[email protected] Pasteur, 23; B – 1300 Wavre

Hans DesmyttereWES – Onderzoek en Advies, [email protected] Ruzettelaan 33,8310 Assebroek-Brugge

Annex 2: Delegate List


DELEGATE LIST

Nina DobrzynskaMinistry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, [email protected], Wspolna Street, Warsaw

Luc DriesWWF Belgium, [email protected], Boulevard E. Jacqmain, 1000Bruxelles

Thomas DudrapEuropean Parliament, [email protected] 2H259 Rue Wiertz, 1047 Brussels

James DunneNational Association of RegionalGame Councils, [email protected] Sandford Rd., Ranglagh, Dublin

Gilles DuperronEuropean Parliament, [email protected] 7H263 Rue Wiertz, 1047 Brussles

Otto DürrMinistry for Agriculture (Baden-Wuerttemberg), [email protected] Vergote 9, B-1200 Brussels

Ralf EisenbeissFederation of Associations forHunting & Conservation of the E.U.,[email protected], Rue F. Pelletier, B-1030 Bruxelles

Aulotte EtienneWWF Belgium, [email protected] Emile Jacqumqin 90, 1000Bruxelles

Aldina FrancoCentre for Ecology, Evolution andConservation; University of EastAnglia, United [email protected] NR4 7TJ, UK

Anna-Lise FreulundSejlflod Kommune, [email protected] 5; 92 80 Storvorde

Alistair GammellRoyal Society for the Protection ofBirds, United [email protected] Lodge, Sandy,Bedfordshire SG19 1ER

Pierre GathyCouncil Supérieure des Forets Wallon,Belgium0032 (0)4 342 7725

Ronan GirardEuropean Landowners’Organisation,[email protected] Pasteur 23; B 1300 Wavre

Lily GoraAfdeling Natuur, [email protected] Roppesingel 25,3500 Hasselt

Olivier GuillitteUniversite de Liege, Unite derecherche GIREA, [email protected] de Botanique de la Vie, B22, StartTilman, B-4000 Liege

Nicholas HanleyEuropean Commission, DGEnvironment, [email protected] Environment Unit B.2; 200, rue de laLoi; BU-9 03/201; B – 1049 Bruxelles

Petr HavlikInstitute National de la RechercheAgronomique – LaboratoireMontpelliéra in d’Économiethéorique et appliquée, [email protected] de Boutonnet, B105, 119 Fg deBoutonnet, 430 90 Montpellier

Robert HendersonThe Scottish Executive, [email protected] and Habitats Unit, 1-H, VictoriaQuay, Leith, Edinburgh, EH6 6QQ

Roelof HeringaStaatsbosbeheer, Region Flevoland –Overijssel, The [email protected]. Box 716, 8000 AS Zwolle

Tim HoggarthFederation of Associations for Hunting &Conservation (UK), United [email protected] Countryside Alliance,367 Kennington Rd, London SE11 4PT

Andrej HudoklinMinistry of Environment and PhysicalPlanning, [email protected] 1b, 1000 Ljublijana

Marion HughesScottish Natural Heritage, [email protected] Hope Terrace, Edinburgh EH9 2AS

Joszef HunyadySomogy Provincial Association forNature Conservation, [email protected];[email protected] u. 62, 8708 Somogyfajsz

Agnese JakovicaLauku ce_ot_js (LCTA) Countrytraveller, [email protected] Str. 11, Riga LV-1048

Sandra JenWWF European Policy Office, [email protected] de Tervuren 36, B-1040 Brussels

Jørn JensenDanish Forest and Nature Agency,[email protected] 53, DK–2100 Copenhagen

Susanne JoergensenDanish Forest and Nature Agency,[email protected] 53, 2100 Copenhagen

Michael JungmeierE-C-O Institute for Ecology, [email protected] 6, 9020 Klagenfurt

Astrid KaemenaEuropean Commission, DG ENV.B.2,[email protected] de la Loi 200, 1049 Brussels

DELEGATE LIST


Helena KaminskaMinistry of the Environment –Department of Nature Protection,[email protected] of Environment, Wawelska52/54 Street, 00-922 Warsaw

Jan KappelEuropean Anglers’ Alliance, EEA,[email protected] du Parnasse 42, 1030 Brussels

Tadas KastanauskasLithuanian Fund for Nature, [email protected] St. 22–3, LT–2006 Vilnius

Simone KiefferAssociation des Viticulteurs d’Alsace,[email protected] Ave de la Foire aux Vins; B.P. 1225,68012 COLMAR CEDEX

Johannes KindEuropean Economic and SocialCommittee, [email protected] Ravenstein 2, B-1000 Brussels

Inga KolomyjskaWWF Poland Programme Office,[email protected] 38 Street, 02-520 Warsaw

Andras KroloppThe Central and East EuropeanWorking Group for the Enhancementof Biodiversity, [email protected]Ülöi ut 91/b, H-1091 Budapest

Rein KuresooEstonian Fund for Nature, [email protected] 2-4, Käärdi 61510, Rõngu vald

Stafanie LangConsultant, [email protected] Rue Lesbroussart B-1050 Brussels

Yves LecocqFederation of Associations for Hunting& Conservation of the E.U., [email protected] F Pelletier 82, B – 1030 Brussels

Rachel LeeRoyal Society for the Protection ofBirds, United [email protected] Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL

Carmen LinaresConsultant, [email protected]

Tony LongWWF European Policy Office, [email protected] de Tervuren 36, B-1040 Brussels

Rainer LuickFH Rottenburg, [email protected]. 14, D-78247 Hilzingen

Mogens MadsenAalborg University, [email protected] 1; 9220 Aalborg

Els MartensAfdeling NATUUR, Ministerie van deVlaamse Gemeenschap, [email protected] Albert II laan 20, 4de verdieping,lokaal 4G43; B – 1000 Brussel; BELGIE

Britta MeinkeDarmstadt University of Technology,[email protected], D-642 83 Darmstadt

Andre MertensRoyal Saint-Hubert Club de Belgique,[email protected]. Lambermont, 410, 1030-Bruxelles

Arno MohlWWF Austria, [email protected]. 114-116, 1160 Vienna

Claire MonkhouseIEEP, United [email protected] Bradley House, 52 Horseferry Rd,London SW1P 2AG

David MorganUK Nature and Landscape Office,[email protected] Ave des Gaulois, B-1040 Bruxelles

Krzysztof MularczykFoundation for the Development ofPolish Agriculture, [email protected] St. 14, 00-561 Warsaw

Christian MullerMinistere de l’Environment,[email protected] Luxembourg

Theodota NantsouWWF Greece, [email protected] Filellinon Street, 105 58 Athens

Aude NeuvilleMinistère de L’Ecologique et duDéveloppement durable, [email protected] ave de Sigur; 75 302 Paris 07 SP

Olivier NoiretSociete Royale Forestiere de Belgique,[email protected] du Centre Bloc II; 1000 Brussels

Marta NovakovaMinistry of Environment, [email protected] 65, Praha 10, 100 00

Nicole Nowicki-CaupinEUROSITE Programme andDevelopment Office, [email protected] 1366, 5004 BJ Tilburg

Jouni PaavolaCentre for Social and EconomicResearch on the Global Environment;University of East Anglia, [email protected] of East Anglia, School ofBiological Sciences, Norwich NR4 7TJ

Marica-Maris PajuTartu County EnvironmentalDepartment, [email protected] 14, 51004 Tartu

Clairie PapazoglouBirdLife International, [email protected] rue de Toulouse, B-1040 Brussels


DELEGATE LIST

Maxime PaquinRéseau Nature – France NatureEnvironnement, [email protected], rue Adèle Riton – 67000 Strasbourg

Belen PinillaECO/Grupo Empresarios Agrarios,[email protected] Via no 57-4 H, 28013 Madrid

Rossella PintusEuropean Economic and SocialCommittee, [email protected] Ravenstein 2, B-1000 Brussels

Agnes PotocnikPermanent Representation of Austriato the EU, [email protected] Ave de Cotenbergh, 1040 Brussels

Feiho PrinsNatuurmonumenten, [email protected]. Box 9955; NL–1243 ZS’s Graveland

Taime PuuraEstonian Nature Education Society,Tartu County EnvironmentalDepartment, Estonia50002 [email protected]

Matteo RambaldiRegione Emilia Romagna, [email protected] de la Brosserie 70, 1050 Brussels

Christian RasmussenSejlflod Kommune, [email protected] 5, 92 80 Storvorde

Heinz ReinoehlMinisterium fuer Laendlichen Raum,[email protected] 10, D-70182 Stuttgart

Claus Riber KnudsenCounty of North Jutland, [email protected] Bohrsvej 30, DK-9220 Aalborg

Saskia RichartzIEEP, [email protected] Ave des Gaulois, B-1040 Brussels

Laurent RigoWWF Belgium, [email protected] Emile Jacqumqin 90, 1000Brussels

Mark RobinsRoyal Society for the Protection ofBirds, United [email protected] England Office, Keble House,Southernhay Gdns, Exeter,Devon, EX1 1NT

Metod RogeljMinistry of Environment and PhysicalPlanning, [email protected] 1b, 1000 Ljublijana

Jörg RoosEcologic, [email protected] Strasse 43-44, 10717 Berlin

Toby RoxburghWater & Environmental JacobsGIBBLtd., United [email protected] House, London Rd,Reading RG6 7BL

Bernard RyelandtSociete Royale Forestiere de Belgique,[email protected], Ave des Cormorans, 1150 Brussels

Vincente SanchezECO/Grupo Empresarios Agrarios,[email protected] Via no 57-4 H, 28013–Madrid

Francisco Sánchez AguadoConsejería de Medio Ambiente. Juntade Castilla y León, [email protected] Reina Juana 5, 40071 Segovia

Szilvia SandorNational Society of Conservationists,[email protected] Budapest, Üll_i út 91/b.

Martin SchneeklothWWF European Policy Office, [email protected] de Tervuren 36, B–1040 Brussels

Werner SimonEuropean Commission, DG Regio,[email protected] de la Loi 2000, B-1049 Brussels

Erika SmrtováAgency for Conservation andLandscape Protection of the CzechRepublic, Czech [email protected]_nická 4-6, 130 23 Praha 3

Uffe Gjoel SorensenWWF Denmark, [email protected] 3F, DK-2200 Copenhagen

Peteris StrautinsWWF Latvia, [email protected] iela 8-4 LV 1010

Luis SuarezWWF/Adena, [email protected]/Gran Via de SanFrancisco, 8ES-28005 Madrid

Kerstin SundsethEcosystems Ltd, [email protected] General Wahis 21 B-1030Brussels

Carlos SunyerTERRA, Environmental Policy Centre,[email protected]/Jorge Manrique 1, 28420 La Navata

Esta TatrikPeipsi CTC, [email protected] 15A-28, Tartu, 15010

Tomy TchatchouCentre Nature 2000 de Rochefort,[email protected] (Sylviculture); 2, Passage desDeportes; 5030 Gembloux

Patrick ten BrinkIEEP, [email protected]. des Gaulois 18, 1040 Brussels

DELEGATE LIST


Zsofia TomcsanyiThe Central and East EuropeanWorking Group for the Enhancementof Biodiversity, [email protected] ut 91/B. H-1091 Budapest

Ellen TownsendWWF European Policy Office, [email protected] de Tervuren 36, B-1040 Brussels

Ruta VaiciunaiteLithuanian Fund for Nature, [email protected] St. 22 – 3; LT - 2006 Vilnius

Janneke van VeenStudent, [email protected] en Dalseweg 62, 6522 BMNijmegen

Paul VandereykenRoyal Saint-Hubert Club de Belgique,Belgiumsame as MertensBd. Lambermont, 410, 1030–Brussels

Sylvie Vanpeene-BruhierCemagref UR EPM, [email protected], rue de la papeterie, DomaineUniversitaire – BP 76,38402 Saint Martin d’Hères

Mojimir VlasinVeronica – ekological institute,Czech [email protected]

Stephen WarmanEnglish Nature, United [email protected] House, Strangeways Villas,Cornwall TR1 2PA

Carleen WeebersMinistry of Agriculture, NatureManagement and Fisheries,[email protected]. Box 20401,2500 EK The Hague

Barbara WilsonInterpreter, United [email protected] Church Close, WokingSurrey GU21 4QZ

Anett ZelleiCentre for Rural Economy, Universityof Newcastle, United [email protected]’s Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne,NE1 7RU

Marcin ZielinskiMinistry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, [email protected], Wspolna Street, Warsaw

IEEPClare COFFEYIEEP18 Ave des GauloisB 1040 BruxellesBelgium

Tel: 00 32 2 738 7471Fax: 00 32 2 732 4004Email: [email protected]

www.ieep.org.uk

WWFSandra JENWWF European Policy OfficeAve de Tervuren 36B 1040 BruxellesBelgium


www.panda.org/epo

This project was supported by the European Commission, the Danish Forest and Nature Agency, the UK Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, and the Ministry of the Flemish Community (Afdeling Natuur).

PROJECT PARTNERS

ADENA/WWF SpainLuis SUAREZC/Gran Via de San Francisco, 8ES-28005 MadridSpain

Tel: 00 34 91 3540578Fax: 00 34 91 3656336Email: [email protected]

www.wwf.es

WWF AustriaArno MOHLOttakringerstr 114–116A-1160 ViennaAustria

Tel: 00 43 1 488 17 233Fax: 00 43 1 488 17 277Email: [email protected]

www.wwf.at

WWF BelgiumLuc DRIESE. Jacqmainlaan 90B 1000 BrusselsBelgium


www.wwf.be

WWF DenmarkUffe Gjøl SØRENSENRyesgade 3FDK-2200 Copenhagen NDenmark

Tel: 00 45 35 36 36 35Fax: 00 45 35 24 78 68Email: [email protected]

www.wwf.dk

WWF LatviaInts MEDNISElizabetes Str. 8-4LV-1010 RigaLatvia

Tel: +371 7 50 56 44Fax: +371 7 50 56 51Email: [email protected]

www.wwf.lv

Peipsi Center forTransboundaryCooperationGulnara ROLLVeski 6950409 TartuEstonia

Tel. +372 (7) 421 001Fax +372 (7) 421 162E-mail: [email protected]

www.ctc.ee

NATIONAL WWF OFFICES/PARTNERS

European Conference Promoting the Socio-Economic Beneﬁts...

Documents

Transcript of European Conference Promoting the Socio-Economic Beneﬁts...