SIXTHMEETING OF THE
EXPERT GROUP ON THE MANAGEMENT OF NATURA 2000
DRAFT MINUTES
23 November 2011
Centre Borchette, rue Froissart – 1040 Brussels
Present: Representatives of MemberStates and stakeholders
Chair:Micheal O’Briain and François Kremer (DG ENV)
NB: All ppts, background papers etc referred to below are available on the following circa site:
- Adoption of agenda ad agreement on minutes of last meeting
The Agenda and minutes of the last meeting are adopted. The group asked the Commission to inform WG members by e-mail when a document is uploaded on Circa so that they are informed immediately. A request was also made to load documents at least two weeks in advance of a meeting.
- Commission note on SAC Designation
François Kremer (DG ENV) informed the group that the Commission note on SAC designation had been presented at the Habitats Committee in May and had undergone only minor changes since then, taking into account comments received from MemberStatesand the ECJ Ruling against Spain(Case C-90/10) regarding SAC designation in the Canary islands.
Jose Manuel Servert Martin(DG ENV legal unit) provided an overview of the Court findings. During the pre-litigation phase Spain had acknowledged that they had not designated 177 SCIs as SACs within the 6 years period or adopted the necessary conservation measures for these sites. As it did submit a copy of the designation actfor 25 sites and a decree on conservation measures to the Court only after the deadline these documents were not taken into account by the Court.
AsSpain submitted the documents too late, the Court merely upheld the Commission’s view that Sites had not been designated and conservation priorities had not been set under article 4.4 and that conservation measures had not been put in place under Article 6.1
The Court did not however expressively rule on the interpretation of conservation priorities under Article 4.4. Spain , supported by Finland considered thatthe term 'conservation priorities' in article 4.4 only refers to the order in which the sites are designated as SACs– ie the ones most under threat should be designated first within the six year period.
On the alleged lack of conservation measures the Court ruled that Spain had failed to apply Articles 6.1 and 6.2. In the case of the sites under the responsibility of the regional authority, the Court ruled that the conservation measures adopted for the regional protection areas did not fulfill the requirements of Article 6.1 since either the necessary protection scheme was at the stage of preparation (for SACs not coinciding with regional protected areas) or there was no full geographical overlap between the regional protection areas (for SACs partially coinciding with regional protected areas) and the management tools in place to protect such spaces could not be regarded as appropriate as they did apply only to a part of the SAC and did not contain appropriate measures to meet the ecological requirements of the habitats and species of community interest present on the sites.
The following observations were made by the working group members:
-it would be useful to have an English translation of the ECJ ruling. The UK offered to share its unofficial translation with the group;
-several group members expressed understanding for Spain and Finland’s interpretation of conservation priorities
-the graphic on page 7 of the note on SAC designation is not clear, especially as regards the box on implementation after the 6 years.
On the last point, Micheal O’Briain (DG ENV) replied that it is not enough to simply establish conservation measures under Article 6.1 within six years, these measures must also be implemented and that is what the graph is attempting to illustrate. He reminded the participants that the note reflects the Commission’s view and is not legally binding. It does however give a view on how the Commission would possibly react in case of non-respect of Art 4.4.
After this meeting the Commission will prepare a final version of the note. Any additional comments must be submitted by the 1st December at the latest.
- Commission note on setting conservation objectives
François Kremer presented the latest version of the Commission’s note on setting conservation objectives (see ppt).
The following observations were made by the group:
-The issue of how detailed the conservation objectives should be merits further clarification. Simply stating that the conservation objectives established for a site is to contribute to FCS may be too general but, on the other hand, the definition of conservation objectives cannot be too detailed in the SAC designation act as this would imply the need for regular updates- instead the detailed description of the objectiveswould best be put in a management plan or another document that is easier to amend;
-Several participants disagreed with the Commission’s understanding of conservation priorities. A prioritization was already done when the sites were selected for Natura 2000 and now it is important to ensure that these pre-selected sites are all managed in a way that ensures their contribution to FCS is maximized. So it would not be correct to say that for some sites lower priorities in terms of conservation objectives would be acceptable.
-The note states that conservation measures should reach the conservation objectives set – but it may be more realistic to say that the measures shouldhave the potential to reach the conservation objectives;
Members of the EG are welcome to submit written comments on the draft note until the end of the year. The Commission will then revise the draft taking account of the comments received and submit it to the next meeting of the Habitats Committee.
- Establishing conservation measures for Natura 2000 sites
Concha Olmeda (Atecma/N2K GROUP) presented a first draft of the document on establishing conservation measures for Natura 2000 sites (Article 6.1) prepared under contract to the Commission (see ppt).
The aim of this document is to promote common understanding of the implementation of Art 6.1 and to share good practice, whilst recognizing the diversity of approaches. The document was drafted on the basis of information submitted by the Member Statesvia a pre-defined factsheet. Altogether 21 or the 27 Member States replied.
The following observations were made by the group:
-In answer to a question about the link between this document and the revision of the Article 6 Commission guide, Micheal O’Briain replied that the document is intended to be more detailed and descriptive whilst the revised Article 6 guide will only look at key concepts. The two documents will therefore be entirely consistent.
-The document is useful in that it presents an overview on how MS are implementing article 6.1. So the six Member States who did not respond to the questionnaire should also submit their information so that the document can give a complete overview;
-It would be useful to elaborate further on the link between management and monitoring;
-It should be made clear whetherthe document covers just terrestrial N2000 sites or also marine sites;
-The document is lacking some quantitative analysis and results – would it be possible to inform more on what works and what doesn’t work?
In reply to the last comment, the Commission considered that this would not be possible since the document is built up from a series of fact sheets filled in by Member States and one should therefore not over-interpret the results since the information is not always fully comparable. Moreover, what works in one country or region does not necessarily work in another.
The Commission wants this document to be as useful as possible to all parties involved at national and regional levels. Comments are welcome – Deadline for comments on the draft document is 9 January 2012, to be sent directly to the consultant.
Sarolta Tripolszky – coordinator of the European Habitats Forum - presented the findings of their report entitled: NGO snapshot report on Natura 2000 management which will be published in December. (See ppt for details).
Heiki Korpoleinen - Ministry of Environment, Finland – provided an overview of the management planning process for Natura 2000 sites in Finland (see ppt for details).
Ben Delbare – ECNC –presented the study ‘Sectorial Experience with Natura 2000’ which they are undertaking for the Dutch Ministry of Environment. The final study will be ready in April 2012 (see ppt for details).
- Commission guidance on wilderness and Natura 2000
Luik Kuiters – Alterra – presented the first draft of the guidance document on ‘management of wilderness and wild areas in Natura 2000’ which was written under contract to the Commission. (see ppt).
The Commission reminded that the European Parliament had adopted a resolution on Wilderness in Europe and that the Czech Presidency had hosted a major European Conference on this issue in 2010. The guidance document responds to the EP request but clearly places the issue within the context of Natura 2000
The following points were raised in the discussion:
-Several participants requested further clarification on how the wilderness index was established – especially as regards the use of the 20% human influence criterion. Some of the sites identified as good practice examples are not perceived as wilderness areas in most people’s mind. Also lakes are all likely to be considered wilderness since they don’t have roads or houses.
-Alterra explained that the wilderness index should not be applied simply on ‘face value’, the data it generates must be carefully interpreted. The index is intended merely as a tool to help identify areas that are ‘wilder’ than others but should not be applied categorically without qualification. The definition of wilderness in the European context needs to remain flexible.
-There is a need to work on the perception of ‘wilderness’ in a European context which varies considerably across the EU. For some areas with no wilderness left the debate currently focuses on whether it is appropriate to 're-wild’ areas. Even areas that are generally seen as ‘wilderness’ are not really – eg in Finland and Sweden, the Sami People are part of a pastoral system involved in reindeer herding which has a major influence of the surrounding environment. These so called ‘wilderness’ areas are still under significanthuman influence.
-The EP Resolution called for action to achieve more wilderness in Europe – this is not really addressed in the present draft guidance document
The Commission explained that no specific working group has been set up to help elaborate this guide since there were already many working groups underway but all comments from this Working group are very welcome. Deadline for comments is 10 December 2011. Comments are to be sent directly to the consultant.
- Commission guidance on climate change and Natura 2000
Irena Bouwma – Alterra – presented the draft guidance document on ‘dealing with the impact of climate change on the management of Natura 2000’ which was written under contract to the Commission. (see ppt).
The guidance document looks at the issues of climate change from two perspectives:
-benefits from Natura 2000 sites for adapting to and mitigating impacts of climate change, reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience
-how adaptation of management can be used to tackle the effects of climate change for species and habitats protected by Natura 2000
It proposes a decision framework for predicting and subsequently addressing climate change issues and presents an overview of different possible measures that can be used, illustrated by good practice examples.
In the discussion the following points were raised:
-the political acceptance for temperature rise is 2°C rather than 4°C – the document should reflect this and not use the 4°C scenario;
-one should be cautious about ‘over-selling’ Natura 2000 as a solution to climate change asNatura 2000 has other objectives and some of the climate change mitigation actions (eg fast growing trees) might be inappropriate in Natura 2000 sites;
-the indirect pressures of climate change on Natura 2000 are likely to be more significant than the direct pressures – eg shifting land uses as a result of greater intensification of farming and/or land abandonment;
-climate change may lead to a change in characteristic species of protected habitat types – this may need to be reflected in a future update of the habitat interpretation manual;
-it would be useful to know how the decision framework can be used in practice and to have more practical guidance for site managers on how to address climate change in their sites.
-Luxemburg pointed out that they have a climate change strategy which has a specific chapter on nature – this is a good way to ensure a coordinated approach
The deadline for comments on this draft document is 15 December 2011. Comments to be sent directly to the consultant.
- Other information points
Financing Natura 2000
Micheal O’Briain (DG ENV) gave a presentation on the Commission’s activities in relation to financing Natura 2000 under the new Multi Financial Framework for 2014-2020 and its relation with the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. He described work under way to developPrioritized Action Frameworks for Natura 2000. He informed that the above elements would be described in the forthcoming Commission staff working paper on Financing Natura 2000 (See ppt for details).
The new biogeographical process
Francois Kremer (DG ENV) provided a brief update on the new biogeographical process and the preparation of the pilot seminar for the Boreal Region which will be held in Finland at the end of May/beginning of June (date to be confirmed shortly). A preparatory workshop will be held on 25-26 January 2012. A first draft of the background document for the workshop has been prepared. This consolidates the information collected by the 5 Member States on the 18 habitat types selected for discussion at the seminar.
Sarolta Tripolszky of EHS asked for copies of the Habitat Information Sheets (HIS) from the Member States so that the NGO experts could compliment the information already provided with their own input – this would be more efficient than writing entirely new HIS. François Kremer informed that the EHF had been invited to comment directly on the draft workshop document instead as this was in anyway a consolidation of the raw data from the HIS.
The second biogeographical seminar will be on the Atlantic Region. The Netherlands has offered to host this seminar and a first preparatory workshop is foreseen in June 2012. The focus of the third seminar is still under discussion.
Agriculture and Natura 2000 guidance
Concha Olmeda (Atecma/N2K GROUP) provided a brief update of progress on the farmland in Natura 2000 contract. The reports for tasks 1 and 2 on the key issues and challenges related to agriculture and nature conservation in Natura 2000 have been finalized. Work is now underway to describe the 27 good practice case studies which have been selected with the help of the sub working group.
A first technical workshop will be held around February 2012 to gather stakeholder views on the kind of guidance they would consider useful to have from the Commission. Details are available on the circa site.
Forest and Natura 2000 guidance
Mariam Sanchez-Guisandez (DG ENV) provided an outline of the work that has begun on developing guidance on forestry in Natura 2000. Forests cover a substantial part of the Natura 2000 areas, therefore appropriate management in Natura 2000 sites covered by forests is crucial in order to achieve the objectives of the nature directives, and also to achieve the EU 2020 targets on halting the decline of biodiversity.
The aim of the new guidelines on Natura 2000 and forestry is to clarify the implementation of the provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives in the Natura 2000 sites covered by forests, as well as to help to solve the potential (or existing) challenges and conflicts,and to identify the synergies that forest management may have in these areas of the Natura 2000 network.
The guidelines will be established in a participatory and bottom-up process in close consultation with all relevant stakeholders. DG ENV and DG AGRI will share the responsibility for the process, with the technical and scientific assistance of a consultancy firm and an ad-hoc working group composed of experts from the Member States, the Commission, main stakeholder organizations and NGOs. The existing Expert Group on Natura 2000 management will also be involved.
The work will be carried out in two phases. Phase 1 (to be completed by early 2012) has the objective of preparing all the background documents and necessary arrangements for facilitating the discussion among Member States, experts, stakeholders and the Commission. The Commission is now preparing a scoping document that will frame (but not exhaustively) the issues to be addressed during the discussion process.
Then during Phase 2, a discussion process will lead to the drafting of a guidance document on Natura 2000 and forestry. Our aim is to prepare the guidance document through an active dialogue with the relevant stakeholders (forest owners, managers, NGOs) and Member States competent authorities so that it will reflect the key interactions between forestry and nature conservation and the key challenges in ensuring win-win co-existence between Natura 2000 and the forest sector.