1. NATURA 2000
French Audit
October 2004

2. 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

3. 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 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 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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 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, 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

9. 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