NATURA 2000 French Audit October 2004

Audit’s purpose Choice for the subject matter Audit’s main outlines: - Difficulties in implementing measures - Complexity of the French frame - Misuse of public supplies Audit’s conclusions 1 ) The choice of the audit subject: Natura 2000 has been chosen considering its European current interest; this subject was extracted from a larger audit performed by the 7th Chamber of the Cour des Comptes on October 2003. 2 ) The audit’s purpose is to describe the French implementation process and to outlines main difficulties France encountered, such as: Difficulties in implementing measures Complexity of national framework, Misuse of public supplies: the incapacity to set up a financial plan and its consequences on European subsidies 3) Audit’s conclusions

Difficulties in implementing measures A huge delay in adapting Directives France is one of the lowest ranking in the European context Only a few contracts drawn with farmers 1) A huge delay in adapting Directives: Directive 79/409/CE dated 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Directive 92/43/EEC dated 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora established an ecological network known as Natura 2000. This network should include special areas for conservation of habitats and for protection of wild birds. Special areas are designated by each country, which has to draw up the list of the sites including natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. On the basis of this list, the EC will adopt a list of sites by order of community size 2) France is the one of the lowest ranking in European context ; France has set up national rules (decrees) within a 10 and 15 year-period after the Directives took effect; due to this huge delay, France has been condemned by European Court of Justice . According to statistics (see next slides) indicating France’s rank within the European context, France is one of the lowest ranking as for classifying sites , both fauna and flora sites (Directive Habitat) and wild birds (Directive Birds) 3) Contracts with farmers: the main purpose of Natura 2000 plan is to get farmers and landowners involved; they were offered to bring their support to a new agri-environmental scheme that should finance the maintenance of farming practice in the long term; the audit pointed out the fact that, due to it’s difficulties in implementing measures, French Government had only signed a very few contracts in October 2003

Natura 2000 French sites Natura 2000 sites are designated in green Most of them are situated in the south and in the middle of France ; The bio-geographical domain is divided into atlantic, continental, alpin, and mediterranean areas. French “DOM TOM” are not concerned in Natura 2000 network implementing Source: ministère de l’Ecologie et du développement durable August 2004

European statistics on Directive Birds Member State Birds Directive Number of sites classified Total classified area (Km2) % of national territory België/Belgique 36 4,313 14,1 % Danmark 111 9,601 22,3 % Deutschland 466 28,977 8,1 % Ellas 151 13,703 10,4 % Espana 416 78,252 15,5 % France 155 11,749 2,1 % Ireland 109 2,236 3,2 % Italia 392 23,403 7,8 % Luxembourg 13 160 6,2 % Nederland 79 10,000 24,1 % Osterreich 95 12,353 14,7 % Portugal 47 8,671 9,4 % Suomi 452 28,373 8,4 % Sverige 436 27,236 6,1 % United Kingdom 242 14,704 6,0 % EUR 15 3,200 273,731 France was the last country to implement Directive Birds with only 155 classified sites, which represents 2.1% of its territory (August 2004) Source: European Commission DG ENV /Newsletter EC January 2004 Source: European commission DG ENV Nature Newsletter January 2004

European statistics on Directive Habitats Member State Habitats Directive Number of sites classified Total classified area (Km2) % of national territory België/Belgique 271 3,184 10,4 % Danmark 194 10,259 23,8 Deutschland 3,536 32,151 9,0 % Ellas 239 27,641 20,9 % Espana 1,276 118,496 23,5 % France 1,202 41,300 7,5 % Ireland 381 10,000 14,2 % Italia 2,330 44,237 14,7 % Luxembourg 47 383 14,9 % Nederland 141 7,505 18,1 % Osterreich 160 8,896 10,6 % Portugal 94 16,500 17,9 % Suomi 1,665 47,932 Sverige 3,420 60,372 13,4 % United Kingdom 601 24,721 10,1 % EUR 15 15,557 453,577 France was the last country to implement Directive Birds with only 155 classified sites, which represents 2.1% of its territory (August 2004) Source: European Commission DG ENV /Newsletter EC January 2004 Source: European commission DG ENV Nature Newsletter January 2004

Complexity of the French frame The role of central authorities: Ministries The place of the Government’s representative and of the public agencies Actors of the local governments: « Communes » & « Départements » The place of private bodies Farmers and landowners Role of central authorities: French ministries (mainly Environment and Agriculture only for a part) are both responsible for implementing Natura 2000 network on the French territory. They are assisted by local authorities and public agencies. Role of local authorities: the Government representative “Préfet du Département”, assisted by local Ministry directions, is designated to apply central measures and to manage the system within his administrative territory; he edicts guidelines and makes propositions about sites to be classified; he signs contracts with farmers. A lot of Publics agencies (national parks, Water public agencies etc…) also participate in the plan. Role of local governments: « Communes & Departements » are consulted by the Government’s representative and give their advice on sites classification: no classification should be adopted without their agreement The weight of private bodies : they play a huge role in the system; they participate in the definition of the lists; they may take legal action when they disagree with the authorities. Farmers and landowners sign contracts of best practice with the “Préfet de Département” NB: the “commune” is the smallest administrative subdivision in France /since 1790, France has been divided into 95 metropolitan “départements” and 4 overseas départements; each is run by its own local council

Misuse of public supplies French supplies mainly used for documentation and studies According to European rules, European subsidies cannot be granted as far as state Member does not implement his own support French supplies €M 1999 2000 2001 2002 studies 1,52 1,14 DOCOB 9,35 11,02 13,03 17,35 contracts 0.7 total 10.87 12.54 14.17 19.19 The creation of a special fund in 1999. In 1999, French government set up a special fund devoted to Natura 2000: the FGMN (fonds de gestion des milieux naturels) was created within the ministry of Environment budget This financial statement shows payments of FGMN from 1999 to 2002 Most payments have been used for the « DOCOB » publication and for pre established studies At the end of 2002, 19.19 M€ had been spent, but only a few contracts had been signed between Government and farmers 2) According to European rules, European subsidies cannot be granted as long as a state Member does not implement his own support: EAGGF (FEOGA) fund offers support for environmental farming and forestry practices on the basis of “ additionality” of national supplies (national fund and European fund are additional). France has not yet received EAGGF subsidies Source: ministère de l’Ecologie et du développement durable janvier 2003

French audit main conclusions Considering the reasons of failure: A huge misunderstanding between government and other French actors Encouraging French reform: France is now on the way to obtain good results French audit considered the reasons why the system failed: 1) A huge misunderstanding and a lack of communication between French central authorities (ministries) and local actors: Natura 2000 is a complicated system which requires a common willingness of a lot of actors at every level of management - The difficulty to adopt a common attitude and to change minds in a country where rural traditions including hunting rights are strong: farmers and landowners have been opposed so far to Natura 2000 contracts agreement; French government had to freeze the implementation of contracts Natura 2000 for a while - The counter-weight of private bodies : for some people, Natura 2000 has been considered as conflicting with farming and hunting interests: private bodies defending these interests have, in some cases, taken legal action in order to cancel French rules 2) In spite of these difficulties, France is now on the way to obtain good results: In 2003, a special manager has been appointed by the ministry of Environment in order to boost the national plan At the beginning of 2004, 75 contracts were signed, due to the financial guidelines set up by the ministry. Those contracts should permit the payment of EAGGF fund to France; 300M€ per year are expected within the few next years