Financing Natura 2000 Success factors

Overview Why working with success factors? Theoretical and practical background Introduction to 12 success factors Example of visible results What to do with the results?

Why working with success factors? Tool for analysing and influencing (political) framework conditions concerning the integration option of financing Natura 2000. Short-term benefit: identifying and making visible bottlenecks and weaknesses very quickly as well as good basis for planning of next steps Long-term benefit: producing successively learning effects by changing processes and improving framework conditions. However, it does not guarantee success!

Transfer to new projects, e.g. Theoretical and practical background: Considering theories on co-operation, e.g. >> steering >> negotiation >> networking Political science Best practice >> Investigation of successful nature conservation projects >> Identification of success factors Transfer to new projects, e.g. >> how to integrate nature conservation into rural development processes >> how to influence framework of funding for financing of Natura 2000

Problem pressure Actors on all levels see the loss of biodiversity as a central problem and consider Natura 2000 to be a realistic approach towards solving the problem. Important actors are environmental protection and nature conservation actors actors in regional / rural development and fishery politics general public

Vision / image Natura 2000 is seen as a positive component of the future, integrated rural development vision, which highlights direction of necessary change process motivates to work towards change co-ordinates activities

win-win-situations In addition to ecological benefits, the actors involved gain economic, social or political benefits, e.g. value generated by Natura 2000 in tourism and regional marketing additional income, higher subsidy rates, preferred subsidy regions justification for the funds applied improved „status“

Communication Professional, target-group oriented and credible communication, e.g. through different communication channels (print media, events ...) direct dialogue (talks, discussions ...) emotional pictures, metaphors ...

Strong actors Support by influential key actors inside and outside the field of nature conservation, such as politics (members of the government and parliament), ministers leaders of interest groups (environment, agriculture, large protected areas, tourism, industry etc.)

Successes Presentations of successes with nature-compatible development boosts conviction and motivation to finance Natura 2000, e.g. by success balances of comparable, previously subsidized measures successes in accordance with the perception patterns of the respective target group aggressively communicating success

Finance Financial framework conditions on all levels as well as plans by nature conservation actors support financing of Natura 2000. This includes sufficient funds for the „sources“ (Structural Funds, EAFRD, EFF, Life etc.) official statements on the finance demand of Natura 2000 defining „additional demand“ from the nature conservation perspective securing mechanism for funding

Measures Natura 2000 measures are eligible by the different programmes. This requires identifying the demand for measures and the funding possibilities closing the funding gaps using existing interpretation leeways

Connectivity Proposals for financing Natura 2000 can be combined with programming schedule framework conditions implementability on administrative level

Exchange and co-ordination Structures are in place to facilitate exchange and co-ordination between nature conservation players: horizontal vertical strategic interaction

Competence and resources Know-how at the interface between development and nature conservation (e.g. EU funding) Strategic and communication skills (e.g. negotiating) Personnel and time (e.g. for accompanying the programming process) Ability to identify and close gaps in knowledge and competence

Drawing cards There are convincing, charismatic persons, who demonstrates their commitment of the integration option to finance Natura 2000: on local level (Natura 2000 regions) on regional level on Member States level on EU level

Example for visible results of common evaluation alongside the success factors: Legend: 1 = not correct 2 = not quite correct 3 = partly correct 4 = more or less correct 5 = perfectly correct

What to do with the results? Discussion of the following issues: Do we have more or less the same appreciation of the rating? What are our strengths and weaknesses? How can we improve the situation for optimal funding options? Planning of next steps / follow-up activities