DRAFT MINUTES OF first meeting of

expert Group on themanagement of natura 2000

25 November 2009

DG Environment, avenue de Beaulieu 5 - 1160 Brussels

Present: representatives of MemberStates and stakeholders– list attached

Chair: Stefan Leiner (for item 1); François Kremer and Micheal O'Briain for other items

1. Introduction and adoption of agenda

Welcoming the participants the Chairemphasised that this was an exploratory meeting and it would be important to get the views of the participants on the priorities to be addressed by this expert group. One of the keyobjectivesisto share experiences and learn from each other.The Agenda was adopted without changes.

The Commissionprovided an introductory presentationoutlining the legal and operational context as well as potential issues to be covered by the expert group[1]. Key points were:

Establishing the Natura 2000 network was nearing completion but this is only the start of the process and the key challenges of protection and management need to be fully addressed. Considering that more than 80% of habitats and species of EU importance are in a bad conservation status or unknown (CS), much work lies ahead to reach the overall goal of Favourable Conservation Status (FCS).

Particularly pressing is the need to designate the sites as SAC under article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive (HD), a task not completed by any Member State (MS). The six year deadline for the implementation of art. 4(4) is due in most MS in 2010 and 2011.

Article 6contains the key provisions forproactive measures (6.1), protectivesafeguards (6.2) and procedural safeguards (6.3/6.4).

While some Member States may not consider Natura 2000 site designation as a management issue, it is a topicthat is central to the application of the proactive provisions of the Directive and needs to be addressed as a key prerequisite to dealing with other important aspects of management of the Natura 2000 sites. For this reason is included in the scope of the group.

The full presentationis available further details cf. the presentation.

2. Draft Terms of Reference

The Commissionpresented draft terms of reference and pointed out that the primary focus of this group will be on proactive management rather than the protective measures for sites, although it recognised that these two key elements of Article 6 of the HD are interconnected.

The CIRCA site of the Commission will be used for documents relevant to the work of this group.The Commission may engage the support of consultants to assist the work in relation to particular priority topics. It is already planning for contracts on "wilderness and wild areas and Natura 2000" as well as on "Natura 2000 and agriculture". Furthermore, in May 2010 there will be a specific conference on "financing Natura 2000"to present and discuss the results of an ongoing contract. Topics from other groups will be brought into the group for attention and consideration but work shall not be duplicated.

In addition to general meetings of the group there may be meetings dedicated to specific issues, not necessarily in Brussels.

The Commission is not in a position alone to deliver all the desired outputs from this group. Members of the group will be invited to actively contribute to the work e.g. in providing text to documents etc. When priorities are defined, MS and/or stakeholders may lead on particular themes or issues. A key objective of this forum will be for MS and stakeholders to share experience and expertise.

The following key points were raised during the discussions:

  • It was clarified that this expert group would report to the Coordination Group on Biodiversity and Nature (CGBN)
  • There is a need for much better understanding of the different key terms used in the directive – such as 'conservation objectives' – that can act as a barrier for integrating MS experiences.
  • As marine issues are being dealt with in an existing group this will not be a particular focus of this group
  • There is a clear need for better guidanceon SAC designation while fully recognising that MS have overall responsibility for implementing the directives.
  • Although this group will not be the main forum for its discussion it was recognised that financing is a key issue for of the management of Natura 2000 and concern was expressed that insufficient funds are currently available.
  • It would be very important to share and promote good practices andexperience rather than simply"imposing guidance" that could be difficult to meet for some MS.
  • There is a need for a much better understanding of the duties related to SAC designation as outlined in the Habitats Directive,including the strong link between designation, fixing ofsite objectives and priorities, and management.
  • Difficulties for effective management of Natura 2000arisingfromit being inadequately integrated into the operation of different existing EU policies were highlighted.
  • It would be importantto better understand the management tools and schemes put in place by different MS, the practices being implemented and the link with RDP and other plans/financial schemes promoted by the European Commission (COM),
  • The importance of integrative planning approaches was emphasised, i.e. in rural and regional plans and in the context of cohesion policy and funding.
  • The issue of defining conservation objectives, in particular the question of how they are better addressed on a site by sitebasis and at the designation moment or developed later with the management plans.
  • The issue of personal resources dedicated to management in the MS.
  • SPAs under the Birds Directive share manyof the needs and management issues applying to SACs.Whereas Art. 6.1. HD does not cover SPAs,Art 4.4 ofthe Birds Directive hasanalogous provisions and the Commission favours a holistic approach. I.e.SPA issues will also be covered by the expert group.
  • The need to give consideration to issues relating to Natura 2000 areas outside the network.

The Commission thanked the participants for their valuable ideas and suggestions and particularly their offers to share information and expertise. All suggestions will be taken into consideration for an updated draft of the terms of reference, to be distributed in advance of the second meeting.

3. SAC designation and management practice in MS

The consultants presented the results of their contract.The first presentation summarisedinformation collected on designation and management of Natura 2000 in the MS. The difficulty of gaining access to all the necessary information in several MS was underlined.

There are very different approaches in the MS. As regardsSAC designation, two groups can be discerned, one with a more general designation and one smaller group with detailed designation, broken down from a national designation and setting of goals (i.e. Slovenia, Portugal).While for SPAs, the legal designation is mostly completed, in all MS SCI still have to be designated as SACs(more updated statistics provided by Commission in opening presentation).

Delaying factors vary, from lack of coordination or capacity to issues regarding public participation. In the consultant's view, participation is also needed in the designation process.

Not all MS require management plans. Most management plans areonly linked to the site's conservation objectives and do not specify management goals.

All MS employ a mix of statutory, administrative and contractual measures to implement Art. 6(1). Regarding the legal status, there are more than 150 status types in the EU. Incentives, such as tax exemptions in France, do not appear to be sufficiently used.

Contractual measures do not appear to be appropriate for all situations.

Discussion and points of clarification:

  • It was made clear that the information used in the study was derived from a questionnaire to all MS and a variety of other sources, like NGOs.
  • As to the inter-relationship between art. 6(1) and 6(2) the consultant said that this was not made clear inmany MS.
  • A direct link between SAC designation as a prerequisite to management planning is not being practiced by all M.S.; as management plans may already be drafted or in place prior to SAC designation. The importance of local managers in charge of implementation was emphasised.The Commission underlined the link between article 4(4) and 6(1), HD, including in relation to prioritisation of action.
  • In relation to public participationit was stated by participants that the HD does not include an obligation for public involvement. The designation process, perceived as rather science-driven and a top-down approach has made it difficulty to secure public support with different groups such as hunters. However, under the Aarhus Convention, there will be a greater need for public consultation in the future.
  • It was emphasised that time and resources invested in public participation are time-consuming if done well, but well-spent and save resources in the later stages of the process. It should also be recognised that stakeholders may not have always capacity to participate.
  • The need for better-developed incentive structures was highlighted, to change stakeholders' attitudes towards NATURA 2000.

The Commissionrecognisedthat thesuccess of Natura 2000 network was also linked to the issueof financing. Currently more studies should be conducted to explore different approaches in designation as well as the relation between site objectives and management planning. Stakeholder participation,though more time consuming,appears to be an important ingredient for success.

Organisation of Management in 27 EU M:S.

Feedback was presented from a consultancy contract examining the management of Natura 2000 in different Member States. The following suggested definition of "integrated management" was presented by the consultant: "A management approach in which interested parties, stakeholders and regulators reach general agreement on the best mix of conservation objectives and measures, the sustainable use of natural resources and the development strategies for these Natura2000 sites. Moreover, they agree upon the shared responsibility for the collaborative execution and the follow-up of the management plan. The coordination serves the management of the Natura2000 site as a whole, taking full account of its relationship with the wider surroundings".The advantages of integrated management should rely on better implementation tools, better use of limited capacities, the inclusion of stakeholders and raising awareness for ecosystem services provided through Natura 2000 management.

The consultant highlighted that there are different levels of stakeholder participation.Monitoring of measures in the management planshould be goal oriented, relating to clearly agreed terms.

Discussion and points raised:

The importance of conservation objectives for policy makers and for the design of conservation measures was highlighted. Both conservation measures and, to a lesser degree, conservation objectives have to take into consideration the socio-economic context, as opposed to the more science-driven definition of the FCS. It was suggested that this issue be considered in more detail at the next meeting.

  • It is essential to avoid "pseudo stakeholder consultation" that covers up top-down decisions and approaches. Real participation has several benefits.
  • Several Member States presented their experiences and views on how and when to engage stakeholders. France involves stakeholders since the earlier stage, when the steering committee where they are involved launch the elaboration process. But their active involvement is generally stronger when the discussions concern the drawing up of conservation measures. They believe stakeholders are more interested in the conservation measures than on conservation objectives, as they can actually involve themselves on their implementation with contracts and charters.A two-tiered approach is applied in Denmark with different levels of public involvement. A framework management plan is drafted by the state and subjected to a public hearing process. The municipalities draft detailedaction plans that are discussed with stakeholders.Portugalunderlined the importance of rural development policies and tools and highlighted the uncertainty about rural development policies.It would be important to know about the tools available for the negotiation with stakeholders.
  • The Commissionemphasised that getting land owners involved atan early stage will increase their sense of ownership of the site management. There is a communication problem and MS should aim toengage stakeholders in the fixing ofNatura 2000 objectives. In relation to funding there are more opportunities for integrated Natura 2000 funding into EU funds than ever before. However, the Commission cannot obligethe MS to use these funds to benefit Natura 2000.
  • It was enquired why there is such a strict deadline for SAC designation when conservation objectives and conservation measuresneed to be discussed with stakeholders as opposed to a scientific process, which would take less time.The Commissionclarified that the process does not end with SAC designation and that there are opportunities for stakeholder involvement after that; however, the six year time-span is sufficient for SAC designations even if including participation of the public or stakeholders.It was also emphasised that the process of definition of conservation objectives cannot be delayed further and needs to be treated as an urgent issue.
  • The Commission recalled a seminar on management planning for Natura 2000 under the1996 Irish EU presidency[2].While highlighting the ingredients of a good management plan this conference did not prescribe any one format. This forum could further discuss and define common principles for management plans.

4. Natura 2000 good practice exchange

The consultant presented the results of this contract. The goal of this communication toolis to enable stakeholders in Natura 2000 sites to exchange information and best practice, to help them find and share solutions to Natura 2000-related problems and to help build network(s) of people involved in all aspects of Natura 2000 in a "self-help group". The web tools used are free and easy to use and have rather low maintenance costs.

Apart from general, generic information, the communication tool includes the possibility of creating sector-specific "mini sites". These could be managed by different organizations and it is hoped would attract sectoral experts. Adding pages is easy and not time-consuming.

Another feature is the exchange of ideas in the discussion forum, open to all registered users.There could also be a directory listing relevant organizations and the links to them.There is also a Google-earth based map featuring a locality-based entrance to examples. All the information can also be filtered by sector.

The next step after approval and installation of the sites would be to promote it and get more mini-sites set up.

Discussion and points raised:

In relation to a question on the mechanisms for checking of new entries and contents (especially in relation to those hostile to Natura 2000 risking an exchange of bad practices),it was clarified that this is dealt withby entering new files (apart from discussion and comment items) firstly into a review list, which has to first be approved (though not censored) by the webmaster.As the system is to rely primarily on aself-regulating community the discussion and exchange process should not be hampered too much. It was confirmed that there would be a disclaimer.

  • It was suggested that there should be a more focused input rather than relying only on stakeholder's input.
  • it was also suggested that the web site would benefit if it is set under the umbrella of the Commission.
  • On the issue of languages which will affect accessibility and usefulness of the community, it was explained that the system is open tomulti-language use and contents. However, there will not be the opportunity to translate the items posted.
  • As to how other existing sites that have accomplished similar taskswill be brought in and also in relation to funding it was clarified that integration with other such websites would be useful and full use should be made of good initiatives.For the moment the financing of this website is dealt withby the Commission.
  • As to the possibility of mini-sites (eg for agriculture)it was explained that the site manager would need to be contacted first, and then asite could be set up. Taking "ownership" of a mini-site would be very much welcomed.

In relation to current interest in the site it was acknowledged that it had taken much effort to actively bring people in and that additional effort would be needed to promote and endorse the site so that it would have a wide user-base. The majority of participants at the meeting indicated that they would use the site. Those who have reservations questioned itsbenefits, especially forstakeholders and land owners. The Commission emphasised the value of a bottom up approach and that it will be important to get a "critical" mass involved and again called for volunteers.It will be necessary to create a sense of ownership amongstakeholders sothat the tool becomes a real mechanism to engage people.

5. Natura 2000 Partner Award Scheme

The consultantsummarisedwork done on the "Natura 2000 Partner Award Scheme" contract.Theinitiative aims to recognise excellence in the integrated management of Natura 2000 sites, the promotion of the network and its objectives and other innovative activities which support Natura 2000. It also aims to provide role models and case studies and to help promote Natura 2000 and communicate its objectives

The proposal is to award the title of "Natura 2000 partner" to interestedpeople/entitiesfulfilling certain requirements, and to award "Natura 2000 Partner of the year" and "European Natura 2000 Partner of the year" for outstanding achievementsat national and EU levels, also possibly including certain sector-specific awards such as for the business sector, etc.