1. Financing Natura 2000 Success factors

2. 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?

3. 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!

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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“

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

9. 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.)

10. 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

11. Finance
Financial framework conditions on all levels as well as plans by nature conservation actors support financing of Natura 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

12. 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

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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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