Sectorial Experience with Natura 2000 By Ben Delbaere, Deputy Director, ECNC 6th Meeting of Natura 2000 Management Working Group - 23rd November 2011 (Brussels)

Project l Financed by the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation l Carried out by ECNC Group (ECNC and EUCC) l Timespan: April 2011 – April 2012

Problem Areas identified as Natura 2000 sites sometimes create challenges for certain economic sectors l What are the N2K related challenges? l What facts support this? l How do sectors deal with challenges? l Are there differences in approach between EU Member States? l Why? l What lessons can we learn from this?

Scope l 3 economic sectors –Agriculture –Tourism and recreation –Forestry l 5 EU Member States: Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland l Focus on sectors (bottom up) l Where possible: identify legal aspects, focus on habitats, analyse the role of regional EU funds, act in dialogue with stakeholders

Approach l Review literature l Carry out interviews l Collect cases of good practice l Perform analysis l Reflect on preliminary results at workshop l Identify best practices l Formulate conclusions and recommendations

How will policy makers benefit? l Insight into facts about N2K related challenges for sectors and how sectors deal with them l Insight into differences in how each country deals with the challenges l Tools for applying the lessons learned in the Netherlands l Data that help to influence policymakers’ views of Natura 2000 in relation to sectors

Results l Pressures from the sectors l Responses from the authorities l Conflicts l Challenges l Solutions and opportunities

Pressures Activities of the selected sectors result in the pressures such as: l Eutrophication: agriculture l Drainage: agriculture, forestry l Intensification of land use: agriculture, forestry l Biofuels: agriculture, forestry l Land abandonment: agriculture l Disturbance: agriculture, forestry, tourism l Infrastructure: agriculture, forestry, tourism

Responses To limit the impact of the pressures l Regulation l Incentives l But…

Conflicts Arise from: l Pressures on sites from economic activities l Real limitations to economic activities –Imposed changes to land use –Building / development restrictions l Perceived limits to development / enterprise –Conflicts due to lack of information, communication and involvement

Challenges l History of selection and designation l Knowledge, information and understanding l Media and communication l Profile and attitude of the stakeholders l Public involvement l Procedures l Multiple designations and management l Limitation to activities and development

Solutions and opportunities l Communication and participation –what do the directives really request? –Involve stakeholders in implementation l Information and knowledge –Level of pressures and impacts, monitoring state of nature: inform better solutions l Process –Stakeholder involvement: copil (F), local alliances (DE), etc –Natura 2000 ‘process manager’: trusted and independent –Farm extension / advice: not only agri but also eco

Solutions and opportunities l Flexibility –Room allowed by EU directives -> challenge: implementation at national level: cf communication l Economic incentives –Economic alternatives: N2K as an opportunity for diversification, regional development –Payments, contracts, tax incentives l Technology –Limit the pressures of activities: N filters, water gauges, wide tyres l Planning –Zoning (in time and space) of (disturbing) activities

Cases

Next steps l Finalise the interviews l Hold a workshop (12 December2011) l Synthesis of the results l Descriptions of good practices l Conclusions and recommendations Your views and contributions are welcome! Contact Mark Snethlage,

Thank you for your attention!