1. Natura 2000 and its relationship with other initiatives which may serve to protect biodiversity
Coordination Group for Nature and Biodiversity
Brussels, Belgium, 2nd March 2010
Shailendra Mudgal
Kate Reilly

2. Agenda 2 Objectives of the study
Investigation and analysis of best practice case studies
Recommendations for future action to enhance establishment of linkages with Natura 2000 2

3. Objectives of the project3
Objectives of the project
To review types of initiatives that are involved in biodiversity conservation (including programmes, actions and plans)
To investigate the types of linkages that can be established with Natura 2000
To develop a conceptual framework of these linkages and to illustrate with examples of best practice
To make recommendations to improve coordination between biodiversity protection initiatives and Natura 2000 3

4. 4
Best practices
To identify, compare and analyse best practices in achieving biodiversity protection in synergy with Natura 2000
Using 10 in-depth case studies (selected from an inventory of 182 projects)
Implemented linkages with Natura 2000 or have the potential to do so, and which employ novel methods of biodiversity protection
To include innovative methods of biodiversity protection, biodiversity benefits outside project boundaries, concrete results gained, not too specific to one species or location
To illustrate a range of scales, land-use types, geographical conditions (climatic, environmental, demographic, economic...), types of linkage with Natura 2000 4

5. 5
Selected case studies
It was intended that the selected projects cover a variety of MS, biogeographical regions, land uses and scales to ensure that lessons learnt are relevant in as wide a range of other circumstances as possible.
Conservation was the main aim of all but one of the projects (it was a secondary aim of BO01 which was concerned with developing an eco-housing district)
Linkages were established both intentionally and unintentionally, and each linkage was established by at least one of the projects. All involved several types of linkages (due to overlaps between definitions)

6. Case study analysis 1/2 6 Types of linkage with Natura 2000
Habitat and landscape connectivity most commonly implemented
Financial linkages where non-traditional sources of funding used, or voluntary agreements employed
Established intentionally where project’s main objectives are to reduce habitat fragmentation or create ecological networks
Method of development usually involved mapping of ecological networks to define biodiversity protection actions linked to Natura 2000 sites
Financing
Either fully funded by governments or received funds from several sources
Results
All met objectives
Benefits outside project boundaries
Multiple benefits aside from biodiversity protection
Enhancement of ecological resilience
Voluntary measures with adequate compensation = voluntary conservation agreements in privately owned forests in Finland
Benefits outside project boundaries include methods being replicated elsewhere, eg Metso’s voluntary conservation agreements implemented in Sweden, BBQ prevents charcoal being imported from elsewhere thus reducing deforestation of mangroves and rainforests, and minimising carbon emissions, linkages established across boundaries eg ecological network in Alsace in France included connectivity elements in Germany
Multiple benefits include flood protection, decontamination of soils (health benefits), reductions in carbon emissions, preservation of cultural monuments, supporting local economy etc etc

7. Case study analysis 2/2 7 Key aspects for success
Involvement of stakeholders in planning and delivery of a project, particularly dialogue with public and landowners
Where resistance to biodiversity protection exists, voluntary measures with adequate compensation effective for protection on privately owned land
Provision of benefits to people
Sufficient funding, e.g. sale of sustainable charcoal provides funds for woodland management
Barriers and challenges
Lack of awareness of types of linkages
Lack of awareness of Natura 2000 sites and other initiatives in the vicinity
Insufficient legal protection for areas connecting Natura 2000
Difficulties in inter-sector and cross-border communication and coordination
Land-use constraints (especially urban land)
Voluntary measures with adequate compensation = METSO’s voluntary conservation agreements
Benefits for people – flood protection, recreation opportunities, employment etc
Barriers and challenges similar to those identified in the analysis of the inventory

8. 8
Conclusions
Physical linkages with Natura 2000 (e.g. habitat, evolutionary, landscape and ecological connectivity) are more commonly implemented
Strong awareness of negative effects of habitat fragmentation
Involvement of stakeholders and public early in project often key
Several aspects of case studies are replicable in other projects, e.g.
Green Area Factor (method for design of eco-housing districts)
Voluntary conservation agreements (method of forest conservation)
Sale of sustainable products (e.g. charcoal) to fund biodiversity conservation
Need for action at a scale larger than that of individual projects
Identification of other projects nearby
Raised awareness of Natura 2000
System for sharing lessons learnt

9. 9
Recommendations 1/3
Guidelines for best practice in biodiversity protection initiatives (for project managers) include:
Thorough planning and use of a pilot phase
Communication with public, landowners and other stakeholders from the start of the project
Identification and integration with other nearby initiatives and Natura 2000
Using linkages with Natura 2000 to enhance biodiversity benefits, ensure long-term sustainability of results and make efficient use of resources
Monitoring and evaluating project, and adapting methods based on outcomes

10. Recommendations 2/3 10 Recommendations at EU level
Thorough communication of Natura 2000 and potential linkages
Platform for exchange of ideas between actors, thus allowing integration between projects
Ensuring sectoral policies (CAP, WFD, urban policy) promote biodiversity protection in synergy with Natura 2000
Natura 2000 Viewer extremely helpful and should be promoted
Blue diagonal lines show Habitats Directive Sites (SCIs)
EEA (2010) natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#

11. Recommendations 3/3 11 Recommendations at Member State (MS) level
Management of Natura 2000 by dedicated body
Further communication of Natura 2000 and potential linkages
Coordinating Natura 2000 by national systems of protected sites
Exchange of best practices between MS
Improving transboundary communication and coordination, including with non-EU states
Recommendations at local and regional level
Inventory of biodiversity protection projects and use of biodiversity action plans and ecological networks to coordinate local actions
Encouraging use of EU-level communication platform
Prioritising dialogue with landowners and public and promoting awareness of biodiversity and Natura 2000
Blue diagonal lines show Habitats Directive Sites (SCIs)

12. Thank you for your attention!12
Thank you for your attention!
Shailendra Mudgal
Kate Reilly
+33 (0)

13. 13
Image References
Aranyponty: [Accessed 17/06/2009]
Bund Naturshutz in Bayern : [Accessed 17/06/2009]
Bund Naturschutz in Bayern : [Accessed 17/06/2009]
Swedish Ornithological Society (2009) [Accessed 17/06/2009]
Eco-Viikki (2000) Energie-Cités in co-operation with the City of Helsinki and Solpros, case study report
Hickling Village [Accessed 19/2/2010]
Rocky Flower Show [Accessed 19/2/2010]
Scottish Wildlife Trust (2006) [Accessed 19/2/2010]
Portugal Travel Guide (2008) [Accessed 19/2/2010]
Information Portal on Switzerland’s Contribution to EU Enlargement [Accessed 19/2/2010]
ECNC (2006)
farm4.static.flickr.com/3227/ _3864dae425.jpg [Accessed 19/2/2010]