1. Methodology for assessment of Natura 2000 costs
Matt Rayment
on behalf of:
THE N2K GROUP

2. Objectives
To support the Commission to obtain updated information on the cost of managing the Natura network in all the MS (in order to provide an aggregated figure for the EU)
To produce a format for reporting these costs and a methodology ensuring that they are calculated in a consistent way (which allows aggregation at EU level)

3. Tasks Analyse pros and cons of the previous 2010 cost assessment
Compile and analyse recent cost assessment methodologies and evaluations in Member States
Define key methodological issues
Prepare a methodology and format for compiling/ analysing costs
Prepare guidelines for MS to apply the methodology and use the proposed template
Revise the methodology and template following consultation with MS

4. 2010 assessment - method
Member States were asked to complete an MS Excel template estimating the costs of full implementation of Natura 2000 in each country
Guidance was issued to aid completion
Results were compiled and published in a report by Gantioler et al (2010) Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network
Report estimated costs for EU 27 at 5.8bn EUR p.a.

5. Pros and cons from 2010 assessment Pros
Good (but not comprehensive) rate of coverage - 25 / 27 MS. Limited upscaling needed to estimate EU wide costs
Useful typology of costs, distinguishing between different types of one- off and recurrent cost
Questionnaire was welcomed by most MS as helpful in guiding the process
Costs could be broken down by MS, one-off/ recurrent, existing and new sites, certain categories of management actions, per hectare averages
Most MS felt they provided reasonable cost estimates based on available evidence (despite some uncertainties and assumptions)
Shared exercise, based on MS own assessments, achieving buy-in from MS, while recognising differences in approach
Exercise seen as providing useful data and representing a clear step forward compared to previous cost exercises

6. Pros and cons from 2010 assessment Cons
Even with guidance, scope was not consistent (range of historic, current, budgeted expenditures, projected costs; inconsistent objectives, gross/ net)
Most MS did not estimate the costs of actions to achieve favourable conservation status
Some gaps – e.g. marine sites, geographical coverage, management actions
Variations in level of detail and explanation provided
Many MS did not have data – exercise took 20 months and two MS did not reply

7. Pros and cons from 2010 assessment Cons (cont.)
Very wide ranges in estimated costs per hectare (EUR ), likely to reflect differences in interpretation and level of ambition as much as real cost differences.
Estimates in some countries distorted by very high cost strategies (e.g. land purchase of all N2K sites in some MS)
Imperfect guidance on which costs to include (e.g. visitor infrastructure)
Attempts to collect and break down costs by land uses were problematic (definitions and guidance, data availability)
Overall, exercise likely to have underestimated costs. Many estimates based on current expenditures or available resources rather than required expenditures (despite guidance)

8. Recent experience in the MS
France has made progress in assessing the levels of financial resources devoted to implementation (EU and national government)
Germany has made an assessment of total costs of implementing the nature directives in the terrestrial area, based on standard costs per hectare
Italy (Lombardy region) has examined Natura 2000 needs for period, using questionnaire of management bodies to detail recent expenditures and current priorities
Wales (UK) has used LIFE project to develop a comprehensive costed programme for Natura 2000 sites
Spain has examined opportunity costs of Natura network, estimating potential income losses due to land use restrictions, as well as direct costs, indirect costs and benefits

9. Lessons and methodological issues
Need to be very clear about the purpose and scope of the cost assessment, and the definitions used
Provide guidance on key terms (types of costs; historic/ current/ future costs; available/required resources; gross/net costs; methods)
Helpful to collect data on both:
Current/ recent levels of expenditure on Natura 2000, and sources of funds (EU/national); and
Resources required to implement network, achieve FCS
As well as focusing distinction between actual/required expenditures, this helps to assess funding gap
National estimates could be supplemented with more detailed site- level data, as recommended by the ECA and Gantioler et al.
Common MS Excel template and guidance will help to achieve this

10. Proposed questions
Question 1: What will be the financing needs of measures required to maintain or restore habitats and species to favourable conservation status in all Natura 2000 sites?
Question 2: What will be the financing needs associated with enhancing the connectivity and coherence of the Natura network, as required by Article 10 of the Habitats Directive?
Question 3: What are the current expenditures and levels of funding for Natura 2000 in your country?
Question 4 (OPTIONAL): What are the costs of habitat management and restoration for Natura 2000 in your country?

11. MS Excel template

12. Draft guidance document - Contents
Objective
Lessons from last assessment
Guidance on key issues
Scope and purpose of the assessment
Types of costs (e.g. one off and recurrent, financial vs opportunity costs, total vs additional costs, Art 10 costs)
Estimation approaches
Estimating current expenditures
Completing the MS Excel template – including questions, cost typology

13. We would welcome your feedback.
Thank you!