number 35 | january 2014 natura...

1 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Ja n ua r y 2014

Protecting native wildlife from invasive alien species

NATURA ISSN

102

6-61

51

N u m b e r 3 5 | J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4N a t u r e a n d B i o d i v e r s i t y N e w s l e t t e r

2000

Environment


Natura2000nature and biodiversity newsletter January 2014

CoNTeNTS3–4 The Natura 2000 Award

5–7 Article 6.3 permitting procedure – taking stock

8–9 Natura 2000 Barometer – update 2013

10–13Proposal for new eU legislation on Invasive Alien Species

14–16 News Round-up

As we put the finishing touches to the eU’s financial instruments for the period 2014–2020, I would like to remind readers about the important new opportunities they offer to leverage financial support for Natura 2000 and Green Infrastructure.

Compared to seven years ago, there is now much greater recognition of the socio-economic value of nature in general and of the multiple benefits that Natura 2000 and Green Infrastructure, in particular, can bring to society. This will hopefully encourage policy makers to take greater account of both in their decision-making processes, and to make better use of the multiple assets they offer to promote a more integrated, inclusive and resource-efficient development process, in line with europe’s 2020 Strategy.

My services and I will continue to assist this process in any way we can. We are already promoting Member States’ Prioritised Action Frameworks across the Commission, and organising information seminars for national authorities on how to access eU funds for Natura 2000. But, ultimately, it will be up to the Member States to make the best of the opportunities available to them and ensure there is a good and early uptake of funds for Natura 2000 and Green Infrastructure in their operational Programmes.

The start of a new year is a good time to take stock of what has been achieved already. With over 27,000 sites across 28 countries, the Natura 2000 network represents one of the most ambitious hands-on actions ever undertaken to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity in europe.

This alone is cause for celebration, but as we set about managing this important resource, it is vital we pay tribute to all those who have been working on the ground to make the network an operational success, be they land owners or users, local authorities, site managers, NGos, or concerned citizens.

An old American jazz standard reminds us of the need to “ac-cen-tu-ate the positive”, and in that spirit, I am very proud to announce the launch of our new european Natura 2000 Award scheme. It aims to recognise excellence and highlight success stories related to managing Natura 2000 sites for the benefit of nature and people, about which you will find more details in this issue.

Janez PotočnikEuropean Commissioner for Environment

Cover: Red squirrel. © Mark Boulton / 4nature

EditorialThe new EU financial instruments offer many opportunities to fund Natura 2000 management.

2©

Thinkstock

© Thinkstock

© iStock

© Shutterstock

3 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Ja n ua r y 2014 3

AwardThe establishment of the Natura 2000 Network, with its 27,000-plus sites, is, without a doubt, one of europe’s greatest achievements to-date in terms of halting the loss of biodiversity in the eU. It advocates a modern, flexible and inclusive approach to the conservation of areas of high biodiversity value, which puts european citizens at the heart of the process. It also recognises that people and nature are very much dependent upon one another. Nature needs our help but, in exchange, it will repay us many times over with the multiple ecosystem services it provides. everyone has a central role to play in making Natura 2000 a success – be they private landowners and users, conservation managers, local communities, NGos, public

Many Natura 2000 sites require active management and restoration.

authorities, or interested members of the general public. And, already, many people are actively engaged in conserving and managing individual Natura 2000 sites across the 28 Member States. However, all too often, this dedication and commitment goes largely unnoticed and unrecognised. What is more, the Natura 2000 Network itself remains unknown to many europeans. According to the latest eurobarometer survey in 2013, only 27% of respondents have heard of it and fewer (11%) really understand what it is.

The objectives of the Award schemeIt is for these reasons that the Commission has decided to launch an annual Natura 2000 Award to shine the spotlight on

Natura 2000 and pay tribute to all those that are working tirelessly on making it an operational success. More specifically, the european Award aims to: · Recognise excellence in the

management and promotion of Natura 2000;

· Provide examples of success stories from across the eU that can act as a source of inspiration and encouragement for others, and help promote good practice experiences;

· Raise the profile of Natura 2000 and bring its important achievements to the attention of the general public in line with the commitment made in the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy to launch a major communication campaign on Natura 2000 by 2013.


© LIFe 9

9_N

AT_D_0

06

051

The Natura 2000 Award recognises excellence in the management of Natura 2000 sites and conservation achievements, showcasing the added value of the network for local economies, and increasing public awareness about Europe’s valuable natural heritage.

The Natura 2000 ©

Zakupak/wikicom

mons


profile annual competition. In this context, winners will also receive logistical and financial support to help organise local promotional events in their home countries, with the presence of high-level representatives from the Commission.

How to applyA dedicated website has been created for the Natura 2000 Award. It provides all the necessary information on how to apply including application forms, guidelines for application and a Frequently Asked Questions paper.

4

The selection processThe selection process consists of three steps. The first involves an eligibility check. Following this, the applications will be assessed for their effectiveness, originality, durability, costs and benefits, and the extent to which they can be replicated elsewhere. The winners will then be chosen by a Jury made up of representatives of the eU Institutions and organisations representing various stakeholders working on issues related to Natura 2000 at the european level.

The AwardThe winners from the five categories will be invited to a high-level ceremony in Brussels, where they will receive a trophy, along with a small financial contribution to help support future conservation efforts. As well as honouring the work of the five category winners, the award ceremony will positively promote the Natura 2000 Network to a wider audience. A further incentive for participants will be the professional recognition of their efforts and the visibility they will gain from taking part in this high

Award categories

2014 will be the first year for the Award. It is open to anyone who is directly involved in Natura 2000 – whether businesses, local and regional authorities, NGOs, volunteers, land owners, educational institutions or individuals.

There are five award categories to choose from:

· Conservation: This award goes to achievements that have improved the conservation status of a particular habitat and/or group of species. Target habitats or species must be on the Habitats Directive Annex I or II or Birds Directive Annex I, or be a regularly occurring migratory bird.

· Socio-economic benefits: This award recognises socio-economic benefits that have come about as a result of a Natura 2000 site or project. A ‘Natura 2000 label’, for example, might allow sustainable producers using the natural resources of the site to create a niche market or obtain better prices.

· Communication: This award recognises successful communication activities aimed at increasing awareness or promoting Natura 2000, and which are liable to bring lasting changes in attitudes or behaviour towards the network.

· Reconciling interests/perceptions: Managing Natura 2000 sites requires addressing the views and interests of different stakeholders. This category will reward successful efforts that brought together sometimes opposing socio-economic or political forces, land or resource users in a way that has benefited them as well as Natura 2000.

· Networking and cross-border cooperation: This category covers two potentially distinct but interrelated aspects:

- How networking activities have resulted in lasting positive impacts for Natura 2000; and/or

- How long-term conservation can benefit from transnational collaboration. The award may also cover cooperation between administrative regions within a country, cooperation between different biogeographical regions, or between marine and land sites.

Don’t miss this opportunity: the deadline for receiving applications is 18 February 2014!

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/awards/index_en.htm

© LIFe_9

8_N

AT_P_005275

© LIFe9

9_N

AT_D_0

04224

© LIFe9

8_N

AT_S_005371-8

© LIFe0 5

_NAT_Ro

_ 0170


Article 6 of the Habitats Directive provides a valuable and efficient legislative tool for ensuring the right balance is struck between economic development and the need to preserve europe’s endangered biodiversity. However, claims have been made that the permitting procedure under Article 6.3 of the Directive sometimes causes substantial delays in the implementation of development plans and projects, and generates a heavy financial and administrative burden for all those involved. In light of these claims, the Commission decided to launch a fact-finding study in 2012 to gather information on the

nature, extent and significance of the problems with, and the burden attributed to, the Article 6.3 permitting procedure, and to formulate recommendations for improving the efficiency of the procedure. The study did not aim to carry out a full analysis of how Article 6.3 is being implemented in all 28 countries. This would have been a much greater undertaking considering the diverse range of approaches being used to apply Article 6.3 in the Member States (and even within different regions of the same Member State) and the hundreds of authorities involved at different administrative levels. Instead, the study used an on-line survey to gather the

views of nature authorities on Article 6.3 across the eU. This was followed up by structured interviews in 10 countries with both nature and other competent authorities, (e.g. from sectors such as energy, transport, land-use planning) and, at eU level, with representatives of key economic sectors and NGos. An extensive literature review was also undertaken together with an in-depth analysis of a dozen practical case studies involving different types of plans or projects having gone through the Article 6 permit procedure. The final analysis report provides a first snapshot of how Article 6.3 operates in different

The Article 6.3 permitting procedure – taking stock

5 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Ja n ua r y 2014©

Pere Sanz/Thinkstock

The permitting procedure under the Habitats Directive provides a valuable legislative tool for balancing economic development with the need to preserve areas of high biodiversity value in Europe.


TypeofproblemsencounteredwiththeArticle6.3procedure:

· Poor quality of the Appropriate Assessment · An inadequate knowledge base on which to assess impacts· Inconsistent screening of plans and projects · Persistent lack of assessment of cumulative effects · Lack of skills/knowledge/capacity in the Article 6.3 procedure · Confusion with the eIA/SeA Procedure· Lack of early dialogue · Lack of consideration of Natura 2000 early on in the

planning process · Problems during public consultation (e.g. NIMBYism)

66

parts of the eU and offers some useful food for thought on how its implementation might be further improved in the future, based on good practice experiences from across the eU.

When do difficulties arise?The first part of the study examined the extent to which Article 6.3 is perceived to be a problem. The response from the on-line survey was very clear on this point. The overwhelming majority (89%) considered that the procedure is functioning well in their country/region, and is providing a robust but stable legislative environment for developers. This is not to say that difficulties and delays do not still arise from time to time, especially with larger more complex infrastructure plans and projects (and also sometimes because of the sheer volume of small local-scale projects involved), but these tend to be linked to individual cases rather than reflecting an inherent problem with the permit procedure as such. During the structured interviews, several authorities acknowledged that there had been serious teething problems at the start and it took several years for all concerned to get used to the new system, accept it and learn how to apply it correctly. But these initial problems have since been largely overcome. This is especially the case in countries or regions that have made a concerted effort to install a coherent and transparent AA system, which is applied in a consistent manner across the board, and where there is an ‘open door’ policy towards developers which encourages early and active dialogue during the entire AA process. on the other hand, countries that have failed to put such a robust system in place continue to experience more frequent delays and difficulties.

The study also found that problems and delays are more frequent when the permit procedure falls under the responsibility of authorities operating at a lower administrative level (e.g. municipality) and/or where there is a lack of basic skills, expertise and/or capacity to handle the process in a consistent and transparent manner.

Natura 2000: a general ban on development?The study goes on to analyse whether there is any evidence to support the view that the Article 6.3 permit procedure, in general, leads to a ban on developments in Natura 2000 sites. Countries do not, on the whole, keep statistics on how many plans or projects are required to go through the Article 6.3 procedure and what proportion this represents of all the plans and projects involving relevant consent procedures and planning applications. But, where statistical data are available, they each conclude that the large majority of plans or projects are either screened out or approved following the appropriate assessment (with or without mitigation measures). only a small proportion is actually abandoned because the AA has concluded an adverse effect and even fewer use the derogation procedure under Article 6.4. These conclusions, which are further supported by the findings

Type of problems encounteredThe second part of the study identifies the types of problems and delays that are most frequently encountered when implementing the AA procedure today and presents a wide range of good practice examples from across the eU of measures that have been used to improve its effectiveness as well as reduce its overall cost and burden. In the beginning, problems often arose because of the long designation process of Natura 2000 sites, poor transposition of Article 6.3 provisions into national law and need for all those involved to become familiar with the new procedure. But, today, problems tend to be linked more specifically to certain practical aspects of the procedure (see box). Apart from the continuing poor quality of the appropriate assessments and the shortage of scientific data on which to

of the literature review, online survey and structured interviews, all point to the fact that Natura 2000 does not act as a general ban on developments within these sites since solutions can usually be found to enable the project to go ahead without adversely affecting the site’s integrity. The key economic sectors did nevertheless point out that the mere presence of a Natura 2000 site can sometimes act as a real deterrent. Some companies will actively avoid proposing projects in or near Natura 2000 sites unless they can be sure of success as regards the Article 6 permit procedure. Also, a number of countries have imposed stricter national rules on certain types of developments in their Natura 2000 sites, which, although not required by the eU directives, alters significantly their overall perception and reputation in these countries.

natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Ja n ua r y 2014

© Shutterstock

Developments in Natura 2000 are possible as long as they meet the procedural safeguards set out in the Habitats Directive.


base the assessment in some Member States, many of those interviewed pointed out that problems arose most frequently when there was a lack of dialogue between developers, authorities and other interest groups, particularly early on in the planning process. experience has shown that an open and iterative dialogue leads to a smoother permit procedure with fewer risks of delays and difficulties. It not only helps those involved to find solutions early on in the process when there are more options available, but also fosters a greater mutual understanding and trust between the partners involved which can in turn lead to a more efficient and cost-effective process.

Recommendations for improvementoverall, the study concludes that the Article 6.3 procedure does indeed provide a robust and efficient legislative tool for ensuring that developments undertaken in and around Natura 2000 sites are done in a way that does not adversely affect the sites. This is not to say that problems don’t still arise from time to time, but nowadays these tend to be linked to individual cases. Nevertheless the study also concludes that there is still room for improvement. In this respect, a series of recommendations for Member States and the Commission are given. They include the following: · Improve the quality and

quantity of baseline scientific data on Natura 2000 and on eU protected species/habitats;

· ensure a more robust and consistent framework for screening plans and projects that are likely to have a significant negative effect on Natura 2000;

· encourage early planning, ‘road-mapping’ and scoping of assessments as well as

data collection as soon as possible in the permitting process;

· Introduce a culture of early dialogue and working in partnership between developers, competent authorities, NGos and other interest groups;

· Provide further on-the-job training for competent authorities, especially at lower administrative levels in order to improve their understanding of the Article 6.3 process;

· Promote streamlined procedures with SeA/eIA while ensuring that AA is clearly identifiable;

Streamlining the Article 6 permit procedures for fisheries permits in The Wash, UK

The Wash is the UK’s largest estuary in Natura 2000, and a prime site for mussel and cockle fishing. Every year the body responsible for authorising the fishing activities in The Wash (EIFCA) is required to draw up an annual plan and submit this for approval under the Article 6 permit procedure. Initially, Natural England, the statutory nature conservation body and EIFCA disagreed on the impact of the fishery proposals which caused significant delays and difficulties in the issuing of permits.

Recognising the need to streamline the Article 6 procedure and improve joint working, both parties agreed to a series of broad fishery management principles which would help ensure that the fisheries activities were consistent with the conservation objectives of the sites. This also meant that the Appropriate Assessment could be done much more efficiently and focus on minor adjustments rather than run the risk of blanket refusals.

Since the new shellfish policies were published in 2008, the AA procedure has, as anticipated, become much faster and smoother. The introduction of broad fishery management principles provides both Natural England and EIFCA with a consistent framework to review and approve the annual shellfish plans. It has also lead to a much stronger working relationship between Natural England and EIFCA where both parties are able to share experiences and discuss up and coming issues. At the same time, the entire process has become much more transparent for the fishermen as well as other stakeholders and NGOs operating in The Wash.

· Promote a more proactive and strategic approach to spatial planning which takes Natura 2000 into account early on in decision-making. This will not only reduce the risk of conflicts later on at project level, but also encourage the search for potential win-win solutions, and provide the development sectors with a stable legislative environment in which to operate.

The final report and the case study compilation are available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm

© Ian Paterson/geograph.org.uk

STUDY ON EVALUATING AND IMPROVING

THE ARTICLE 6.3 PERMIT PROCEDURE

FOR NATURA 2000 SITES

Contract N¡ 07.0307/2012/623211/SER/B3

REVISED FINAL REPORT

October 2013

ECOSYSTEMS LTD S P R L / B V B A

CASE STUDIES ON THE ARTICLE 6.3 PERMIT PROCEDURE UNDER THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE

JUNE 2013

Produced by

ECOSYSTEMS LTD Brussels


Member States

Natura 2000 SiteS (SPas + SCis) terreStrial MariNe

Member Statestotal N°

Natura sitestotal area in Natura (km²)

% land area covered by

Naturatotal area SCi

(km²) N° SCistotal area SPa (km²) N° SPas

total area Natura 2000

(km²)

total N° Natura sites

on landtotal area SCi (km²) N° SCis

total area SPa (km²) N° SPas

total area Marine Natura

2000 (km²)

total N° Marine Natura

sitesBELGIË/BELGIQUE 458 5 153.95 12.75% 3 067.07 278 2 968.68 231 3 890.83 453 1 123.60 3 312.00 4 1 262.91 7 BELGIUM

BULGARIA 336 39 056.31 34.34% 33 259.91 230 25 097.43 118 38 083.59 335 582.56 13 507.86 11 925.81 23 BULGARIAČESKÁ REPUBLIKA 1 116 11 061.54 14.03% 7 855.97 1 075 7 034.43 41 11 061.54 1 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZECH REPUBLIC

DANMARK 350 22 646.40 8.43% 3 211.81 234 2 633.84 111 3 632.11 322 16 455.70 86 12 150.10 52 19 011.67 130 DENMARKDEUTSCHLAND 5 264 80 753.10 15.47% 33 575.00 4 603 40 295.41 737 55 243.81 5 248 20 845.37 58 19 641.34 24 25 508.68 79 GERMANY

EESTI 568 14 832.28 17.82% 7 651.82 536 6 138.04 65 8 061.10 562 3 897.94 43 6 498.96 26 6 770.78 50 ESTONIAÉIRE/IRELAND 587 16 095.65 13.17% 7 186.12 419 4 334.09 157 9 258.66 571 6 347.11 126 1 534.69 86 6 828.03 211 IRELAND

ELLÁDA 419 42 947.05 27.29% 21 615.80 241 27 840.14 202 36 009.68 419 6 439.05 93 1 673.42 54 6 908.11 137 GREECEESPAÑA 1 805 147 918.44 27.27% 117 260.92 1 438 100 705.71 591 137 663.64 1 790 10 027.43 178 2 596.74 68 10 193.20 211 SPAINFRANCE 1 754 110 699.51 12.56% 46 692.29 1 357 43 375.40 378 68 957.88 1 735 27 941.06 134 35 331.42 77 41 736.42 211 FRANCE

HRvATSKA 780 25 953,22 34.80% 16 023.05 522 17 093.06 38 20 722.36 560 4 889.29 236 1 034.93 9 5 196.29 245 CROATIAITALIA 2 576 63 725.47 19.03% 43 012.07 2 257 40 225.83 609 57 357.33 2 534 5 238.46 246 3 756.94 69 6 308.12 282 ITALY

KÝPROS* 61 1 759.75 28.37% 750.85 39 1 481.70 29 1 627.37 60 132.27 7 111.21 5 132.34 9 CYPRUS*LATvIJA 324 9 168.48 11.52% 7 403.20 317 6 598.99 94 7 442.00 324 1 725.21 7 1 706.65 5 1 725.21 7 LATvIALIETUvA 488 8 564.12 12.07% 6 128.95 405 5 476.56 82 7 883.19 488 533.69 4 426.80 4 680.86 8 LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG 60 469.45 18.08% 413.64 49 141.57 13 469.45 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 LUXEMBOURGMAGYARORSZÁG 525 19 949.74 21.44% 14 443.70 479 13 745.73 56 19 949.74 525 0 0 0 0 0 0 HUNGARY

MALTA 39 233.72 13.35% 41.51 30 15.84 12 42.18 37 190.79 12 0.64 7 191.16 17 MALTANEDERLAND 203 17 384.12 13.82% 3 177.67 139 4 856.90 74 5 739.00 200 11 644.35 11 5 584.73 7 11 644.46 14 THE NETHERLANDSÖSTERREICH 218 12 546.18 14.96% 8 990.04 169 10 108.43 97 12 546.18 218 0 0 0 0 0 0 AUSTRIA

POLSKA 983 68 458.54 19.58% 33 827.34 844 48 534.63 144 61 210.34 982 4 347.94 9 7 236.68 9 7 248.19 17 POLANDPORTUGAL 149 21 628.01 20.89% 15 584.43 92 9 405.89 56 19 217.38 143 965.42 34 2 077.73 19 2 407.80 51 PORTUGALROMÂNIA 531 55 675.46 22.63% 39 924.54 382 35 505.50 148 53 941.51 530 1 530.64 8 1 459.10 1 1 720.82 9 ROMANIA

SLOvENIJA 286 7 203.44 35.52% 6 397.44 260 4 615.65 26 7 200.34 286 0.26 7 2.85 1 3.09 8 SLOvENIASLOvENSKO 514 14 448.26 29.58% 5 838.14 473 13 110.51 41 14 448.26 514 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLOvAKIA

SUOMI 1 839 55 986.24 14.42% 48 479.53 1 682 24 571.87 465 48 760.65 1 823 6 874.73 141 6 509.05 91 7 224.64 168 FINLANDSvERIGE 4 071 66 724.48 13.86% 57 006.80 3 938 25 421.31 528 57 509.49 4 024 9 137.79 406 4 650.95 129 9 210.55 444 SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM 920 94 840.59 8.55% 13 103.76 627 15 625.49 267 20 934.74 894 66 947.66 143 11 492.43 125 73 893.59 267 UNITED KINGDOM

eu28 27 221 1 035 883.40 18.16% 601 923.37 23 115 536 958.62 5 410 788 864.34 26 753 207 818.32 2 005 126 297.23 883 246 732.71 2 605 eu28

TheNaturaBarometer is managed by DG eNV with the technical assistance of the european environment Agency and is based on information officially transmitted by Member States until october 2012 (or September 2013 in the case of Croatia). Many sites have been designated according to both Nature Directives, either in their entirety or partially. The figures relating to the number of Natura 2000 sites (i.e. SPAs + SCIs) and their area coverage have been obtained by GIS analysis in order to eliminate possible overlaps between Birds Directive sites and Habitats Directive sites.

The methodology used for these calculations has recently been refined, which explains why many of the figures are slightly different from the previous Barometer updates.

NB Sites having a terrestrial component covering more than 5% of their total area were counted as terrestrial sites.

Sites having a marine component covering more than 5% of their total area were counted as marine sites.

The figures given for Croatia are indicative only and are currently being checked by EEA.

* The area and % of territory corresponds to the area of Cyprus where the Community acquis applies at present, according to protocol 10 of the Accession Treaty of Cyprus.

barometer

Map of the Natura 2000 network, 2013 Natura2000sites

(undertheBirdsandHabitatsDirectives)


update2013

Member States

Natura 2000 SiteS (SPas + SCis) terreStrial MariNe

Member Statestotal N°

Natura sitestotal area in Natura (km²)

% land area covered by

Naturatotal area SCi

(km²) N° SCistotal area SPa (km²) N° SPas

total area Natura 2000

(km²)

total N° Natura sites

on landtotal area SCi (km²) N° SCis

total area SPa (km²) N° SPas

total area Marine Natura

2000 (km²)

total N° Marine Natura

sitesBELGIË/BELGIQUE 458 5 153.95 12.75% 3 067.07 278 2 968.68 231 3 890.83 453 1 123.60 3 312.00 4 1 262.91 7 BELGIUM

BULGARIA 336 39 056.31 34.34% 33 259.91 230 25 097.43 118 38 083.59 335 582.56 13 507.86 11 925.81 23 BULGARIAČESKÁ REPUBLIKA 1 116 11 061.54 14.03% 7 855.97 1 075 7 034.43 41 11 061.54 1 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZECH REPUBLIC

DANMARK 350 22 646.40 8.43% 3 211.81 234 2 633.84 111 3 632.11 322 16 455.70 86 12 150.10 52 19 011.67 130 DENMARKDEUTSCHLAND 5 264 80 753.10 15.47% 33 575.00 4 603 40 295.41 737 55 243.81 5 248 20 845.37 58 19 641.34 24 25 508.68 79 GERMANY

EESTI 568 14 832.28 17.82% 7 651.82 536 6 138.04 65 8 061.10 562 3 897.94 43 6 498.96 26 6 770.78 50 ESTONIAÉIRE/IRELAND 587 16 095.65 13.17% 7 186.12 419 4 334.09 157 9 258.66 571 6 347.11 126 1 534.69 86 6 828.03 211 IRELAND

ELLÁDA 419 42 947.05 27.29% 21 615.80 241 27 840.14 202 36 009.68 419 6 439.05 93 1 673.42 54 6 908.11 137 GREECEESPAÑA 1 805 147 918.44 27.27% 117 260.92 1 438 100 705.71 591 137 663.64 1 790 10 027.43 178 2 596.74 68 10 193.20 211 SPAINFRANCE 1 754 110 699.51 12.56% 46 692.29 1 357 43 375.40 378 68 957.88 1 735 27 941.06 134 35 331.42 77 41 736.42 211 FRANCE

HRvATSKA 780 25 953,22 34.80% 16 023.05 522 17 093.06 38 20 722.36 560 4 889.29 236 1 034.93 9 5 196.29 245 CROATIAITALIA 2 576 63 725.47 19.03% 43 012.07 2 257 40 225.83 609 57 357.33 2 534 5 238.46 246 3 756.94 69 6 308.12 282 ITALY

KÝPROS* 61 1 759.75 28.37% 750.85 39 1 481.70 29 1 627.37 60 132.27 7 111.21 5 132.34 9 CYPRUS*LATvIJA 324 9 168.48 11.52% 7 403.20 317 6 598.99 94 7 442.00 324 1 725.21 7 1 706.65 5 1 725.21 7 LATvIALIETUvA 488 8 564.12 12.07% 6 128.95 405 5 476.56 82 7 883.19 488 533.69 4 426.80 4 680.86 8 LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG 60 469.45 18.08% 413.64 49 141.57 13 469.45 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 LUXEMBOURGMAGYARORSZÁG 525 19 949.74 21.44% 14 443.70 479 13 745.73 56 19 949.74 525 0 0 0 0 0 0 HUNGARY

MALTA 39 233.72 13.35% 41.51 30 15.84 12 42.18 37 190.79 12 0.64 7 191.16 17 MALTANEDERLAND 203 17 384.12 13.82% 3 177.67 139 4 856.90 74 5 739.00 200 11 644.35 11 5 584.73 7 11 644.46 14 THE NETHERLANDSÖSTERREICH 218 12 546.18 14.96% 8 990.04 169 10 108.43 97 12 546.18 218 0 0 0 0 0 0 AUSTRIA

POLSKA 983 68 458.54 19.58% 33 827.34 844 48 534.63 144 61 210.34 982 4 347.94 9 7 236.68 9 7 248.19 17 POLANDPORTUGAL 149 21 628.01 20.89% 15 584.43 92 9 405.89 56 19 217.38 143 965.42 34 2 077.73 19 2 407.80 51 PORTUGALROMÂNIA 531 55 675.46 22.63% 39 924.54 382 35 505.50 148 53 941.51 530 1 530.64 8 1 459.10 1 1 720.82 9 ROMANIA

SLOvENIJA 286 7 203.44 35.52% 6 397.44 260 4 615.65 26 7 200.34 286 0.26 7 2.85 1 3.09 8 SLOvENIASLOvENSKO 514 14 448.26 29.58% 5 838.14 473 13 110.51 41 14 448.26 514 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLOvAKIA

SUOMI 1 839 55 986.24 14.42% 48 479.53 1 682 24 571.87 465 48 760.65 1 823 6 874.73 141 6 509.05 91 7 224.64 168 FINLANDSvERIGE 4 071 66 724.48 13.86% 57 006.80 3 938 25 421.31 528 57 509.49 4 024 9 137.79 406 4 650.95 129 9 210.55 444 SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM 920 94 840.59 8.55% 13 103.76 627 15 625.49 267 20 934.74 894 66 947.66 143 11 492.43 125 73 893.59 267 UNITED KINGDOM

eu28 27 221 1 035 883.40 18.16% 601 923.37 23 115 536 958.62 5 410 788 864.34 26 753 207 818.32 2 005 126 297.23 883 246 732.71 2 605 eu28

© Shutterstock

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CY SI SK LT PL CZ IT PT AT LV RO DE MT FI GR EE FR ES BG UK SE BE DK HU IE LU NL

SR

IN MAJ

IN MOD

IN MIN

SUF

Note that the graph only covers the terrestrial part of the SCI network, marine species and habitat types are not taken into account. (Situation: December 2012)

Sufficiency of the European Natura 2000 NetworkFor Sites of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive (SCIs), the Commission, with assistance from the eTC-BD, evaluates the completeness of the network by individually assessing, for each species and habitat type, whether its occurrence is sufficiently well covered by the existing sites. The level of completeness of Natura 2000 can be expressed as the percentage of species’ and habitats’ assessments per member state indicating that the network is complete. The graph indicates the result of this evaluation for the terrestrial part of Natura 2000:

SR (scientific reserve): additional research needed to identify the best sites; IN MAJ (major insufficiency): none of the sites where that species/habitat

type occurs have been proposed so far; IN MOD (moderate insufficiency): additional sites still need to be proposed

or existing sites be extended for that species/habitat type; IN MIN (minor insufficiency): sufficiency could be achieved by adding the

species/habitat type as a qualifying feature to existing sites; SUF(sufficient): the network is sufficient for that species/habitat type.


2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

Index of alien species (1970 = 1)Source: Butchart et al. 2010, Science 328: 1 164 (2010)

19801970 20001990


© Shutterstock

Proposal for new eU legislation on Invasive Alien Species

The number of alien species in Europe has almost doubled in the last 40 years.

Red-eared slider turtle.

Asian hornet.

Harlequin ladybird.

In September, the european Commission published its much-anticipated proposal for a new Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS), as foreseen under target 5 of the eU’s Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. The proposal aims to establish a coordinated eU-wide legal framework for action to prevent, minimise and mitigate the adverse impacts of IAS on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and limit their damage to the economy and human health. It is estimated that there are already around 12 000 alien species in europe. These range from viruses, bacteria and other micro-organisms, to fungi, plants and animals. Whilst some have been introduced intentionally for

commercial use or private interest (e.g. ornamental plants or exotic pets), the majority have come in by accident, either as ‘contaminants’ on tradable commodities or as ‘hitchhikers’ on various forms of transport or equipment originating from other regions of the world (e.g. used tyres, ships’ ballast). Around 10–15% are considered to be ‘invasive’, a term used to describe non-native species whose introduction and spread outside their natural range poses a real threat to biodiversity and the economy. In addition to causing extensive ecological damage to europe’s native wildlife and ecosystems, IAS have a huge economic impact. According to existing data IAS are estimated

to cost the eU at least e12.5 billion a year in damages and eradication programmes.

The need for EU-level actionIAS is a significant and growing problem in all eU Member States;

The Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, is a carrier of over 20 highly dangerous human pathogens such as dengue fever. It has entered the EU by accident on used tyres and in ‘lucky’ bamboo plants.

© iStock

© Shutterstock

© Jean H

exaire/NN

SS


once an IAS is established in one country it can easily spread across borders to neighbouring countries. It therefore makes sense to tackle the problem at eU level. Not only will this ensure that measures taken in one country are not undermined by the lack of action in a neighbouring country, but a coordinated eU-wide approach will also help to improve the overall effectiveness of the measures taken to combat IAS, which should, in turn, lead to significant economies of scale and cost savings. Certain elements of IAS have already been addressed through a variety of existing eU laws, involving in particular legislation targeting plant health and animal diseases, wildlife trade (CITeS) or the use of alien or locally absent species in aquaculture. But they are far from sufficient to tackle the problem in a comprehensive manner. The new Commission proposal intends to build on these existing laws, and the measures already undertaken by the Member States, in order to fill any remaining policy gaps and ensure a coherent legal framework for concerted action against IAS. At the same time, it introduces an element of prioritisation, so that eU action is focused on those IAS that cause the most damage and where dedicated measures are clearly needed at eU level.

IAS of Union ConcernIn this respect, the new proposal aims to draw up a list of ‘IAS of Union concern’ which will contain species deemed to be the ‘worst offenders’ within the eU. The selection of IAS will be made by a Committee composed of representatives nominated by the Member States and the Commission. Decisions will be made on the basis of the comprehensive risk assessments undertaken for each of the IAS proposed.

Both the Commission, and the Member States may propose an IAS for the list but they must use the same common criteria for carrying out the risk assessment, and base their findings on the best scientific evidence available at the time. In addition to establishing the list of IAS of Union concern, the new eU proposal foresees a range of other measures. These focus on three different types of intervention: · prevention;· early detection and rapid

eradication; and · management of IAS that are

already wide spread in the eU.

PreventionRecognising that prevention is always better – and more cost effective – than cure, the first set of proposed measures aims to stop IAS from entering the eU in the first place, either intentionally or unintentionally. Thus, it will become illegal to intentionally bring into the eU any species listed as an IAS of Union concern. Their reproduction, transport, sale, use, possession or release into the environment will also be banned. Custom authorities are mandated to carry out controls at all of the Union borders, and will have the power to seize any shipments that do not conform. As the identification of IAS is not always easy, it is foreseen that guidelines will be issued and training courses organised, at the appropriate level, to help custom authorities better detect the IAS. exceptions will be possible for duly justified reasons, such as research and ex-situ conservation, but only on condition that the competent authorities in the Member States concerned have issued a permit to that effect and that certain conditions are respected, such as keeping the specimens in closed facilities. Member States will also be entitled to take emergency measures for any species that are not on the Union list but for which they have reason to

AEuropeanAlienSpeciesInformationNetwork(EASIN)

A strong knowledge base is essential for underpinning efficient and scientifically-justified decision-making. To assist the Member States in their tasks, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) has recently set up a European Alien Species Information Network, (EASIN), which provides a single interface for around 40 existing databases on IAS in Europe. It currently contains a catalogue of over 16,000 reported alien species in Europe.

Through dynamically updated web features, users can view their distribution in Europe using a number of selection criteria ranging from the environment in which they are found (terrestrial, marine or fresh water) and their biological classification through to the pathways of their introduction. Further webtools will be added in due course.

http://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu

Giant hogweed, Heracleum mantegazzianum, causes severe burns and dermatitis when skin is exposed to sunlight, and may even cause blindness when in contact with eyes; it is estimated to cost €1 million a year in medical treatment in Germany alone.

A significant number of marine IAS have entered the EU attached to the hull of ships or in the ship’s ballast water.

© iStock

© iStock


ExamplesofdifferentimpactsofInvasiveAlienSpecies

Impacts of IAS on human health:COMMON RAGWEED, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, was initially introduced through contaminated seed and grain for crops and bird food and is now present in the vast majority of EU countries. Often found in arable fields, and along roadside verges or railway embankments, common ragweed is a highly allergenic species that is known to have a major impact on human health. It is also a severe agricultural weed, leading to yield losses within arable crops of up to 50%. Altogether, the plant is estimated to cost around €4.5 billion/year as a result of impacts on agriculture and human health.

Impacts of IAS on biodiversity:The North American RED SWAMP CRAyFISH, Procambarus clarkii, was originally introduced into Europe for use in aquaculture. Having escaped into freshwater streams, this aggressive species has since spread steadily across several EU countries, actively colonising new territories at the expense of rarer native crayfish, such as Austropotamobius pallipes which is listed in the Habitats Directive. Apart from causing local extinctions, the red swamp crayfish is also a carrier of a fungus-like organism that is wiping out entire populations of European crayfish. The disease alone is estimated to have an economic cost of over €53 million/year.

Impacts of IAS on ecosystem services: CAUlERPA TAxIFolIA is a kind of seaweed originating from the Indian Ocean that is commonly used as an ornamental plant in tropical aquaria. Having been released into the wild, the species has spread rapidly across the Mediterranean Sea, invading or displacing valuable native marine plants and habitats such as Posidonia beds. Its presence has not only caused a massive reduction in marine biodiversity in these areas but has also severely affected their ability to deliver key ecosystem functions (such as sediment resuspension) and services (such as protection against seabed erosion).

Impacts of IAS on economic activities:The WATER HyACINTH, Eichhornia crassipes, is a free-floating aquatic plant native to the Amazon basin. It was introduced into Europe as an ornamental plant for use in garden ponds and public parks. In high densities, its roots become so entangled that they eventually create large floating mats. Not only do these mats substantially alter the local environment beneath them but they also block water pipes and clog up navigation routes. In 2005–2008, this species cost over €14 million to control along a 75-km stretch of the Guadiana River in Spain.

The COyPU, Myocastor coypus, is a large semi-aquatic rodent from South America. It was first introduced into Europe for its fur. Because it feeds on agricultural crops it can cause significant losses in productivity. Moreover, its extensive burrowing activities result in major damage to irrigation systems and river banks, leading to increased risk and severity of flooding. In Italy the species caused €10 million worth of damage to riverbanks, and €0.9 million worth of damage to agriculture during 1995–2000 (Bertolino, 2009).

1212

© iStock

© iStock

© iStock

© Shutterstock

© Shutterstock

© Roberto Rinaldi/naturepl.com

13 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Ja n ua r y 2014 13

believe their presence will cause significant ecological and/or economic damage on their territory. In such cases the Member State in question will need to inform the Commission and other relevant Member States of its actions, so that the latter can react accordingly and, if appropriate, eventually endorse the inclusion of that species on the list of IAS of Union concern.

Dealing with hitchhikers and contaminantsAs regards the unintentional introduction of IAS, this is, of course, a much harder problem to deal with. The new proposal intends to address this by asking Member States to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the pathways used for the introduction or spread of IAS within their country. The aim is to identify pathways requiring priority action because of the volume of species using them or the level of damage caused by the species entering the eU along these routes. once the priority pathways have been identified, Member States should prepare and implement an action plan to address these routes of access. Whilst many of the measures are likely to be regulatory in nature (e.g. appropriate border checks and inspections, measures to minimise contamination…), it will be important that they are backed up by extensive public awareness campaigns. Because there are so many different types of IAS around and so many different kinds

Management of already established IAS in the EUThe final element of the new proposal deals with the management of IAS of Union concern that are already well established in one or more Member States. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, each country will be required to put in place a series of measures to control and contain their IAS populations of Union concern – or eradicate them completely if this is still possible – so that their ecological and economic impacts can be minimised. When applying such measures to invasive animals, Member States must ensure that the methods used are humane. Member States are also encouraged to coordinate their management programmes across national borders where this is likely to lead to a more efficient and cost-effective solution for all concerned. In addition, they should take appropriate

measures to restore the habitats damaged or destroyed by IAS in order to assist their recovery and prevent any subsequent re-invasions.

Final comments The Commission’s timely proposal offers a comprehensive framework for addressing the ever-increasing problem of IAS in europe. But, as it is a new policy area for the eU, it advocates a measured approach that will enable the system to be developed gradually, giving the Commission and Member States an opportunity to learn from experience, and ensure the new system is entirely ‘fit for purpose’. The proposal has now been sent to the european Parliament and the Council of Ministers for deliberation and eventual adoption.

For more information go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm

of pathways they can use, it is essential that all sectors that are associated in one way or another with the problem of IAS are made fully aware of the problem and given a role to play in limiting their introduction or spread. Some sectors have already introduced or are preparing codes of good conduct and guidelines to address the risk of IAS (e.g. the european codes of conduct for botanic gardens on IAS, or on hunting and IAS). There are also a number of international initiatives underway, such as the International Convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments, as well as the International Maritime organisation’s biofouling guidelines. Considering that most of the aquatic IAS come in on ship hulls or in ballast water, this industry can play a major role in preventing their release.

Early detection and rapid eradicationThe second component of the new proposal focuses on early detection and rapid eradication. In this respect each Member State will need to establish an official surveillance system to collect and record key data on IAS of Union concern in their territory. This should not only contain the up-to-date data on their current status and distribution but also information on the measures taken to eradicate or control them, as well as the effectiveness of such measures. These surveillance systems should enable a Member State to notify the Commission and the other Member States as soon as an IAS of Union concern has been detected. That way immediate action can be taken to eradicate the IAS early on, before it has had a chance to spread and cause significant damage. The surveillance system will also allow countries to share valuable experiences on the various management techniques that have been developed for the eradication or management of different IAS.

© D

avid Kjaer

© iStock

The North American grey squirrel.

LIFEprojectshelpingtotackleIAS

Between 1992–2006 the EU’s lIFE-Nature Fund supported over 180 projects at a total cost of €44 million to assist in the control and eradication of IAS in various Natura 2000 sites. Several projects focused on the eradication of the North American ruddy duck, Oxyura jamaicensis, which has been found to interbreed with the rare native white-headed duck, Oxyura leucocephala, threatening its long-term survival.

Thanks largely to the work of the lIFE projects, the total ruddy duck population has been brought down to 550–700 specimens and is now only present in four EU countries. The aim is to eradicate the remaining birds by 2015.

The white-headed duck, Oxyura leucocephala, is threatened by its non-native American cousin, the ruddy duck, Oxyura jamaicansis.


● NeWS ● PUBLICATIoNS ● eVeNTS

New Commission handbook on Financing Natura 2000The Commission is currently preparing a new handbook on financing Natura 2000 to coincide with the publication of the eU’s financial regulations for the period 2014–2020. The document is designed to help Member States strengthen the uptake of eU funds for their Natura 2000 sites. It is primarily intended as a tool for authorities responsible for financing Natura 2000 at the national or regional level, but will no doubt also be of great interest to any ‘end-users’ of eU funds who carry out activities in Natura 2000 sites, be they landowners or users, site managers, businesses, NGos, or scientists. The handbook describes each of the different eU funds in turn, including their overall purpose, before highlighting the opportunities available for Natura 2000. The funds covered are: the european Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (eAFRD); european Maritime and Fisheries Fund (eMFF); european Fund for Regional Development (eRDF); european

Social Fund (eSF); Cohesion Fund; european financial instrument for the environment (LIFe); and Framework Programme for research and innovation (Horizon 2020). A summary of the key lessons learned during the 2007–2013 funding period is also provided to highlight a number of potential bottlenecks to achieving integration and to offer suggestions for overcoming them. These are illustrated by a series of practical examples of past eU funded projects that were successful in implementing the integrated co-funding model while, at the same time, providing a range of socio-economic benefits and supporting sustainable rural and/or regional development. In addition to preparing a guide, the Commission is also running a series of information seminars on the financing of Natura 2000 under the new eU funds in the Member States to inform them of the opportunities available. The draft guide, and other relevant material, is available on the following website: http://www.financing-natura2000.eu

New LIFE Regulation adopted The new LIFe regulation for 2014–2020 was adopted in January 2014. It remains the only eU instrument exclusively dedicated to financing environment and climate-related projects. The total budget of E3.46 billion is split between two distinct sub-programmes: one for environment (around E2.59 billion) and one for Climate Action (around E864 million). Just over half of the budget for action grants under the environment sub-programme is earmarked for nature and biodiversity actions, which translates into around E1.15 billion in total for the seven-year period. In addition to co-funding ‘traditional’ projects as in the past, a new type of intervention has been created: the ‘integrated’ project (IP). These are intended to encourage a more strategic programmatic approach towards the implementation of eU environmental legislation. In particular, IPs should help to implement the Member States’ Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) for Natura 2000, e.g. by supporting the management and restoration of Natura 2000 sites across a broad geographical area (such as an entire region or country). The beneficiaries will also have to mobilise additional private, national, or, preferably, european funds, to finance actions complementary to the IP itself. In contrast to the traditional projects, the application procedure for IPs will involve not one, but two phases, the

first being the submission of a concept note. If this is evaluated positively, the applicant will be asked to submit a full application, together with a detailed Financial Plan, which will be used to check inter alia compliance with the obligation to mobilise other funds. The first phase of the LIFe programme (2014–2016) is anticipated to start in February 2014 with the adoption of a multiannual work programme for 2014–2017, which identifies the strategic funding priorities for ‘traditional projects’ during this first period. The first call for projects will most likely be published in May/June, with a deadline for submission of applications in october/November 2014. Detailed application guidelines will be available on the LIFe webpage in due course. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/

Progress on Article 17 reporting every six years, Member States must report on the state of conservation of the species and habitat types listed in the Directive that are present on their territory in accordance with Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. The next ‘health check’ is due in 2015. The european Commission, with the help of the european environmental Agency and the european Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, then consolidates this information in order to determine the extent to which protected species and habitats have reached, or are on the way to reaching a favourable conservation status within the eU.

There are opportunities to support the management of agricultural areas in Natura 2000 under the new Rural Development Programme.

© Shutterstock

15 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Ja n ua r y 2014 1515 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Ja n ua r y 2014

Almost all Member States have now submitted their Article 17 reports to the Commission and the process has begun for assessing the conservation status of the species and habitat types at the level of each of the biogeographical regions. A public consultation on the draft results is envisaged for summer 2014, and the Commission’s consolidated eU report accompanied by a technical report by eeA and eTC is expected for the first half of 2015. Information on the status of eU bird populations will also be available at this time, since the submission of Article 12 reports under the Birds Directive has been programmed to coincide with that of the Article 17 reports. To follow progress go to: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/Member_State_Deliveries

New Green Infrastructure brochure Following the publication of the eU’s strategy on Green Infrastructure (GI) in May 2013, the Commission has produced an information brochure explaining how Green Infrastructure can work in practice and what benefits it can bring to society. It also explains how the eU intends to promote GI under its new strategy. Amply illustrated by real life examples from across europe, the brochure is intended for anyone looking for a quick and easy introduction to GI. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm

Alpine Natura 2000 Seminar The third Natura 2000 Seminar, this time for the Alpine Region, took place in Graz, Austria, on 25–26 November in the context of the Natura 2000 biogeographical process. Bringing together some 90 experts from governmental and non-governmental organisations from 12 Member States, the seminar set out to identify common priorities and shared interests on the management of Natura 2000 sites in the Alpine Region. Discussions focused on four main habitat groups – freshwater habitats, wet and dry grasslands, wetlands and forests – and led to a list of actions to help address key management issues and stimulate further collaboration and networking within the Alpine region. Details are available on the Natura 2000 communication platform: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/index_en.htm

Establishing conservation measures for Natura 2000 sitesFollowing its notes on ‘SAC designation’ and ‘setting conservation objectives for Natura 2000’, the Commission has published a new clarification note on ‘establishing conservation measures under

Article 6.1 of the Habitats Directive’. The note aims to provide a common understanding of the provisions of Article 6.1. It is accompanied by an in-depth review of the experiences of different Member States in implementing the provisions of Article 6.1 to date. Various options for establishing the necessary conservation measures for Natura 2000 sites are examined and illustrated by good practice examples from across the eU. Both documents are available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm

Eurobarometer survey results A new eurobarometer survey was carried out in 2013 to gauge how strongly european citizens feel about, and are aware of, the problem of biodiversity loss. 93% of the 25,500 respondents agreed that it is important to halt biodiversity loss because our well-being and quality of life is dependent upon nature and biodiversity. 75% also considered biodiversity was important because europe will get poorer economically if it continues to lose its biodiversity. The survey also revealed a small upward trend in awareness of the Natura 2000 network (27% stated they knew

Grassland management was discussed at the Alpine seminar.

Building a Green

for Europe

Environment

Infrastructure

The conservation status of the otter, Lutra lutra, will be analysed through the article 17 reports.

© Shutterstock

© D

avid Kjaer

16 natureandb iod ivers i tynewsletter | Ja n ua r y 2014KH

-AA-13-002-EN-C

TheNatura2000NewsletterisproducedbyDGEnvironment,EuropeanCommission

Author:KerstinSundsethEcosystemsLTD,BrusselsCommissionEditor:SusanneWegefelt,DGEnvironmentDesign:NatureBureau,UK

ThenewsletterisproducedtwiceayearandisavailableinEnglish,French,German,Spanish,ItalianandPolish.

Tobeaddedtothemailinglist,ortodownloadtheelectronicversion,visithttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs:natura2000nl_en.htm

ThenewsletterdoesnotnecessarilyreflecttheofficialviewoftheEuropeanCommission.

PrintedonrecycledpaperthathasbeenawardedtheEUEcolabel(http://ec.europa.eu/ecolabel)

©EuropeanUnion,(2014)Reproductionofcontentotherthanphotographsisauthorisedprovidedthesourceisacknowledged.

about Natura 2000 in 2013 compared to 18% in 2007), however 65% said that the eU should increase the areas where nature is protected in europe. The survey is available on: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1018_en.htm

BEST Projects The eU’s BeST Initiative aims to promote the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of ecosystem services in european overseas territories and regions. In 2011 and 2012 the BeST Preparatory Action, in partnership with the Agence Française de Developpement (AFD), provided funding for 18 BeST projects worth almost E5 million. A consortium led by IUCN has since been contracted to further support the BeST Initiative. It will work together with ongoing activities to establish a platform which will enable and facilitate information sharing on funding availability. It will also help to develop seven regional ecosystem profiles and BeST strategies on the appropriate level. This should promote the long-term flow of scientifically robust projects linked to a network of established and reliable sources of public and private funding. For further information go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm

Newsletter survey results Our newsletter survey launched last year provided some encouraging feedback. 69% of respondents said they read the newsletter from cover to cover, whilst the vast majority (89%) considered the layout and readability to be excellent or good. Moreover, almost two-thirds wanted to see the newsletter published at more frequent intervals. The survey also indicated that the Newsletter enjoys a very broad readership. Just over a third of the respondents were from a public nature authority and a quarter from a nature conservation interest group, but there were also quite a number from the general public (16%), students or scientists (16%) or consultants (12.2%).

Coral reefs in the EU overseas territories and regions.

New LIFE+ nature projects funded In July 2013, the Commission approved the funding of 92 new nature and biodiversity projects under LIFe+. Together, they represent a total investment of over E247 million, to which the eU will contribute E139 million.

Amongst the new projects launched, are initiatives for the reintroduction of the Northern bald ibis into the eU, the restoration of Danish coastal habitats, protection of the european hamster in Alsace, the recovery of Bonelli’s eagle in Spain, and the eradication of the invasive exotic plant species Ailanthus altissima in the Alta Murgia National Park, Italy. For a description of all 92 projects go to: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/compilations/documents/natcompilation12.pdf

Natura 2000 flagsDG eNV has produced a number of Natura 2000 flags (100x150 cm) which are now available to anyone interested in placing them in a prominent location to help raise awareness for Natura 2000. Send requests to: [email protected]

© Thinkstock

Photocredits:Cover©MarkBoulton/4nature;p2©Thinkstock,©Thinkstock,©iStock,©Shutterstock;p3top©Shutterstock,©Zakupak/wikicommons;p4©LIFE_98_NAT_P_005275,©LIFE99_NAT_D_004224,©LIFE05_NAT_RO_0170,©LIFE98_NAT_S_005371-8;p5©PereSanz/Thinkstock;p6©Shutterstock;p7©IanPaterson/geograph.org.uk;p10©Shutterstock,©iStock,©JeanHexaire/NNSS,©Shutterstock;p11©iStock,©iStock;p12©iStock,©Shutterstock,©RobertoRinaldi/naturepl.com,©iStock,©iStock,©Shutterstock;p13©DavidKjaer,©iStock;p14©Shutterstock;p15©DavidKjaer,©Shutterstock;p16©Thinkstock.

number 35 | january 2014 natura...

Documents