Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Evidence Gathering Questionnaire for the Fitness Check of the Nature Directives
Introduction
As part of its Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT), the European Commission is undertaking a Fitness Check of the EU nature legislation, the Birds Directive1 and the Habitats Directive2 ('the Nature Directives'),3 which will involve a comprehensive assessment of whether the current regulatory framework is “fit for purpose”.
Adopted in 1979, the Birds Directive relates to the conservation of all wild birds, their eggs, nests and their habitats across the EU. Its strategic objective is ‘to maintain the population of all species of wild birds in the EU at a level which corresponds to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level’.
The Habitats Directive, adopted in 1992, covers around 1000 other rare, threatened or endemic species of wild animals and plants and some 230 habitat types. These are collectively referred to as habitats and species of Community interest. The strategic objective of the Habitats Directive is "to maintain or restore natural habitats and species of Community interest at favourable conservation status, taking into account economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics".
The Directives require Member States to take a variety of measures to achieve these objectives. These measures include the designation of protected areas for birds (Special Protection Areas) and for habitats and species of Community interest (Special Areas of Conservation), which together comprise the Natura 2000 network, and the adoption of strict systems of species protection (see objectives of the Directives in Annex I to this document).
The Fitness Check is intended to evaluate how the Nature Directives have performed in relation to the achievement of the objectives for which they were designed. In accordance with its mandate,4 adopted by the European Commission in February 2014, it will assess the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the Nature Directives5.
As part of this process, the European Commission has commissioned an evaluation study to support the Fitness Check. The study is tasked with gathering and analysing evidence and data held by a wide range of stakeholders.
The Questionnaire presented below is a key tool to enable you to provide this evidence.
1
Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7-25. 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50). 3 Please note that for the purposes of this questionnaire, the terms 'EU nature legislation' and 'Nature Directives' refer to the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. 4 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/evaluation/docs/mandate_for_nature_legislation_en.pdf 5 For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm 1
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
In parallel to this questionnaire, you are invited to contribute to the initial list of published and peer-reviewed documents identified as being relevant for the Fitness Check. The list, which will be updated at regular intervals, is structured according to the evaluation categories set out in the mandate. It can be accessed at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/index_en.htm
The European Commission will also launch an online public consultation for 12 weeks from April to June 2015. You are welcome to fill in that survey as well, but please be aware that the two exercises are of a different nature. The public consultation will collect views and opinions, whereas the questionnaire presented below aims to collect evidence, meaning facts or information (such as case studies, research findings, infringement cases, case law and data) which support a point or position.
The questionnaire
The questionnaire has been prepared in order to gather evidence-based information for the evaluation. It is being sent out to all Member States and selected key stakeholders across the EU.
Please answer all questions that you consider relevant to the situation in your country/region/sector/area of activity, based on direct experience supported by evidence. You are not expected or obliged to answer all questions.
Where possible, quantitative evidence should be provided. Where this is not possible, semi- quantitative or qualitative evidence would be welcome.
We would encourage you to answer in English. In your answers please specify why and how the evidence and documents provided is relevant for the specific question. For documents that are not in English, please provide in the answer to the question a brief summary in English that explains its relevance to the question.
Please provide full reference details for all documents cited or referred to in your answers: author / editor names and their initials, full titles, full names of journals, relevant page numbers, publishers and place of publication. If the document is available online, please add a URL link. If it is unpublished information, please supply a copy or relevant excerpt. When citing in short a document for which you have already provided full reference details, please ensure that we can distinguish between references that have the same author(s) and year of publication.
Please, make sure that the link between a question and the document related to it is clear. You may choose to provide the full reference of cited documents in footnotes or in notes numbered and linked to a reference list at the end of the questionnaire. If you send documents as attachments to the email, please give them a name that includes the number of the question(s) they are related to. Deadlines for submission of the questionnaire
We kindly ask you to fill in the questionnaire and return it by e-mail within 5 weeks of receiving it to: [email protected].
We appreciate that it may not be possible to provide complete answers to all the questions and collect all the evidence you may wish to provide within this timeframe. However, it is 2
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives essential that we receive an initial response which is as complete as possible within 5 weeks in order to enable us comply with the tight evaluation schedule.
On the basis of the initial responses received, follow-up interviews may be organised to seek clarification or additional information if required. It may not be possible to organise such interviews for responses received after the 5 week deadline. However, you will have until the end of April to complete your final submission in response to the questionnaire. Please note that it will not be possible to take into account contributions received after that deadline.
The evidence gathered through this questionnaire will be vital to the overall process. For this reason, if you anticipate that you will not be able to complete the questionnaire, please let us know as soon as possible.
Thank you in advance for your contribution.
3
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
4
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
QUESTIONNAIRE
A. General Information Please answer ALL questions in this table
Answer
Organisation: WWF Bulgaria
Date: 14.03.2015
Country (and, if applicable, region) Bulgaria represented:
Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds (BSPB) , Balkani Wildlife Society , Green Balkans, Bulgarian Organisation(s) represented: Biodiversity Foundation, Association of Parks in Bulgaria, WWf Danube-Carpathian Program Bulgaria
Name of contact for enquires (including Yuliya Grigorova and Irina Kostadinova follow-up interview if required):
[email protected]; [email protected] Contact email address:
Contact telephone number: +359 2 950 50 40
Languages spoken fluently by contact English person:
Language for the interview if it is not - possible to conduct it in English
Type of organisations you represent: nature conservation charity EU authority or agency / Member State authority or agency / business or industry / educational or scientific institute / nature conservation charity / recreation / individual expert / other (please specify).
Sector represented: environment / water / Environment agriculture / forestry / fisheries / transport / energy / extractive industry / industry / housing and other buildings / recreation & tourism / science & education / other (please specify)
If necessary we are able to provide more evidence by Additional comments: the end of April 2015
5
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
B. EVALUATION / FITNESS CHECK questions Please answer all questions that are relevant to you and for which you can provide informed insights from direct experience and/or supporting evidence.
We would kindly ask that you keep your answers as succinct as possible. They should summarise in no more than 2 pages any evidence relevant to a given question. More complete/detailed information, if any, should be provided in the form of references and/or web links. Definitions, explanations and examples are provided under each question to assist you in answering them.
When answering the questions, please note that the Fitness Check intends to examine the performance of the Nature Directives in relation to their stated objectives, taking into account expected results, impacts and external factors. The figure below presents the intervention logic as included in the mandate. For ease of reference, a table presenting the objectives of the Directives, differentiating between different types of objectives (strategic, specific, operational), is included in Annex I to this document.
The questions are structured around the five evaluation criteria addressed in the mandate: effectiveness = S, efficiency = Y, coherence = C, relevance = R, and EU added value = AV.
6
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Effectiveness This section focuses on assessing the extent to which the objectives of the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive have been met, and any significant factors which may have contributed to or inhibited progress towards meeting those objectives. By 'objectives', we refer not only to the strategic objectives, but also to other specific or operational objectives required under other articles of both Directives (as set out in Annex I to this questionnaire). 'Factors contributing to or inhibiting progress' can relate to the Nature Directives themselves (e.g. the clarity of definitions) or be external factors such as lack of political will, resource limitations, lack of cooperation of other actors, lack of scientific knowledge, or other external factors (e.g. see those listed in the above intervention logic). We are particularly keen to learn of evidence that is not included in the Member State implementation reports6.
S.1.1 What progress have Member States made over time towards achieving the objectives set out in the Directives and related policy documents? Please provide evidence on what progress has or is being made towards the achievement of the objectives set out in Annex I that are of relevance to you. Please address separately the objectives of the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, and specify which objective(s) you are referring to, with references to the corresponding Articles. If possible quantify the progress that is being made.
Answer: Bulgaria joined the EU on 1 January 2007 and for 8 years to date there has been a significant progress in terms of the strategic objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive. The most important of this is that the coverage of protected territories was increased from 5% of coverage of national protected areas to almost 34%7.
Habitats Directive In terms of operations objectives, the progress in Bulgaria is as follows:
Operational objective Evidence
Arts. 4 & Sites of Community Sites in the Alpine region8; Black Sea9; Continental10 5 Importance selected
Art. 6 Ensure appropriate This requirement is transposed into the Biodiversity Act (Art.31) (3/4) assessment of plans and and there is considerable practice of its implementation. projects
Art. 6(4) compensatory measures Transposed in the Biodiversity Act, arts. 33 & 34. in cases of overriding reasons
Art. 8: Prioritised Action PAF document developed11 Framework (PAF)
6 Habitats Directive Reports: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/ Birds Directive Reports: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_12/Reports_2013/ 7
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Art 10: ecological coherence of The requirement in transposed into the Biodiversity Act, art.30 the Natura 2000 network paragraph 2. Practice is needed in terms of implementation.
Art. 11: surveillance of the National guidelines for defining Favourble Conservation Status conservation status developed for Annex 1 habitats and Annex 2 species12: A large scale project for mapping and assessment of favourable conservation status implemented with funding from the Environment Operational Programme (EOP)13.
Art 12 & Species protection Provided for in the Biodiversity Act, arts.37-40. 13 system
Art. 14 Exploitation Annex V Provided for in the Biodiversity Act, art. 41- 43. (1) species is compatible with their maintenance at FCS
Art. 15 Prohibit indiscriminate Provided for in the Biodiversity Act, art. 44 means of capture/killing as listed in Annex VI
Art. 16 System of derogation Provided for in the Biodiversity Act, art. 48- 51
Art 17 Monitoring Report Bulgarian report submitted14
Art. 18: undertake research to A large scale project for mapping and assessment of favourable support the objectives of conservation status implemented with funding from the the Directive Environment Operational Programme (EOP)15.
Birds Directive General: Birds Directive is sufficiently transposed into Bulgarian legislation through Biodiversity Act. It provided better guidance and requirements for conservation of species and more opportunities for targeted conservation of species and their habitats through Natura 2000 network. It is also the first ever legal instrument in Bulgaria which also requires finances to be allocated for practical conservation and research of birds. Strategic goals: Art.2 Conservation measures prevent extinction, reverse negative trend or lead to population increase of number of rare and endangered species (Griffon Vulture, Imperial Eagle, Golden Eagle, White-tailed Sea Eagle, Dalmatian Pelican, Black Stork etc.), while populations of some common birds have negative trend. The overall short term trend analyses of Bulgarian breeding birds (n=243) shows that 43% are stable, 19% increasing, 18% decreasing, 10% fluctuating 10% unknown 16 17. This could be explained with effectiveness
7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm 8 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2009.043.01.0021.01.ENG 9 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009D0092 10 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2015_018_R_0001 11 http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/Home/Documents 8
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives of the conservation measures focused on endangered species in Natura 2000 sites and insufficient protection of the habitats especially outside Natura 2000 network affecting widespread species with farmland birds being most affected. Another phenomenon that needs more analyses is that many typical migrants seems to have negative trend that might reflect threats outside EU. In practice the enforcement of Birds Directive in Bulgaria already represents improvement of the status of some of the most threatened species and needs to be strengthened, while cross compliance and adjustment of other policies and sectors to needs for protection of wild birds needs further efforts and improvements in order to be fit with strategic goals of Birds Directive.
Specific objectives: Art.3 Bird and Habitat Directives provided for first time in Bulgaria mechanism for coordinated measures for conservation of a network of protected sites, as a coherent instrument for bird conservation – Natura 2000. Protected Areas system exist in Bulgaria for decades, but even after improvement of legislation in 90-ties of XX century to meet international IUCN categories of protected areas, it focuses on the individual protected area with regimes and measures within its boundary only and without taking into consideration the rest of the protected areas. Natura 2000 network requires at looking of the integrity of sites and coherence of the network in order to achieve conservation objectives at national scale and each site has its own role and contribute to this process nevertheless that it is individually protected and managed. While the network of nationally protected areas cover only 5% of the territory of the country, the Natura 2000 network in Bulgaria much better encompass the biodiversity valuable areas covering about 34% of the country. SPA network cover about 22% of the area of Bulgaria, which is nearly sufficient to achieve the objectives set by Bird Directive. First six management plans for SPAs are elaborated and adopted, where the process of elaboration of such plans for SPAs started in 2011. The proportion of SPAs with specially prepared management plans is still small (5% of all SPAs), but the process is still in the beginning. In addition to this since the beginning of EU membership activities already implemented for improvement of the status of threatened or damaged habitats and restoration of habitats – mainly wetlands and grasslands (10 projects) and specifically for improvement of breeding conditions of threatened birds (especially waterbirds, raptors and the white stork) \another 10 projects).
Art. 5 Since the beginning of EU membership actions targeting conservation of birds become more intensive, coordinated and fixed to the purpose of achievement of long term objectives set in the Bird Directive. Only for the period 2008 – 2012 22 projects run with the financial support of LIFE+ Programme and Structural Funds (Environment Operational Programme) of EU18. Their implementation is focused both on targeted
12 www.bbf.biodiversity.bg/document-188 13 http://ope.moew.government.bg/en/projects/projectdetail/cid/10/id/207 14 http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/Member_State_Deliveries 15 http://ope.moew.government.bg/en/projects/projectdetail/cid/10/id/207 16 Report on Art. 12 (1) of Directive 2009/147/EO on Conservation of Wild Birds for the period 2008 2012 (Annex to Reporting Data Form); Ministry of Environment and Water. 2013 (in Bulgarian): DOC_1_Appendix_Info_art12_Birds_2008-2012.doc of attached evidence 17 State of common birds in Bulgaria reports: http://bspb.org/monitoring/en/reports.html 18 Report on Art. 12 (1) of Directive 2009/147/EO on Conservation of Wild Birds for the period 2008 2012 (Annex to Reporting Data Form); Ministry of Environment and Water. 2013 (in Bulgarian) : DOC_1_Appendix_Info_art12_Birds_2008-2012.doc of attached evidence 19 Kostadinova, I., M. Gramatikov (eds.) 2007. Important Bird Areas in Bulgaria and Natura 2000. Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds, Conservation Series, Book 11. Sofia, BSPB, p.14: http://bspb.org/bg/edition/IBA-Natura-book.html 20 Complaint to the Commission of the European Communities Concerning Failure to Comply With Community Law related to insufficient designation of SPA network in Bulgaria (Infringement case 4850/2008): DOC_2_ECcomplaint SPA_BG_18_9_2007.doc of attached evidence 21 Duprey, B. 2014. Natura 2000: Bulgaria’s Paper Park. A dissertation submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy of Central European University in part fulfilment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Budapest. 276 pp: DOC_3_Dissertation_Duprey_2014_N2K_Bulgaria.pdf 22 http://parliament.bg/bg/bills/ID/15179 23 http://www.lifeneophron.eu/en/Scientific-publications.html 24 http://www.lifeneophron.eu/en/Technical_Reports.html 25 http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/PublicDownloads/Auto/OtherDoc/276296/276296_Birds_120.pdf 26 http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/PublicDownloads/Auto/OtherDoc/276300/276300_Birds_120.pdf 27 http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/PublicDownloads/Auto/OtherDoc/276299/276299_Birds_120.pdf 9
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives measures for birds inside the SPA and measures that enhance the connectivity and coherence of the SPAs as a network, mainly though improving the conditions for occurrence (e.g. implementation of agri-environmental schemes, installation of artificial nests, isolation of risky electrical power lines, artificial feeding) and minimizing the threats (e.g. control on hunting, poaching, illegal poisoning) to Annex I species in areas outside SPAs. There are officially adopted species action plans for 4 globally threatened species – Egyptian Vulture, Imperial Eagle, Saker Falcon, Dalmatian Pelican, White-headed Duck, as well as 3 other species listed in Annex 1 of Birds Directive – Ferruginous Duck, Pygmy Cormorant, and Bittern.
Art. 7 Bulgarian Hunting act is in compliance with Bird Directive regarding huntable species, methods, and hunting season. With joining of EU the end of hinting season of waterfowl was fixed at 31 January, which ensured much better condition of wintering waterfowl just before spring migration starts. Before accession there were regular attempts for prolongation f hunting seasons \some time successful), but since 2007 the bad practice was stopped.
Measures/operational objectives: Art. 4: Nevertheless that Bulgaria had the obligation to designate SPA network, sufficient in size and number, according to art.4, before 1 January 2007, 7 year later this obligation is still not completed. As the IBAs are the minimum of sites need to create SPA network according to Art.4, it is recognised that until Rila IBA is not fully designated as SPA, the obligation will not be completed. At present Bulgarian IBA network covers total area of 26,021 km2, which equates to 23% of the country’s land area and 542,72 km2 a coastal marine area19. All IBAs are designated as SPAs, but the area of one of them (Rila SPA) is significantly reduced by 26%, which decrease the total coverage of SPA network with 3,81 km2. Nevertheless that it represent small proportion of the total coverage of SPA network, it is vital for integrity and long term protection of valuable bird habitats in Rila IBA, because include specific habitats – mountain forests and grasslands. As in many other EU member states, Bulgarian government did not fulfill their obligation before intervention by European Commission. Now there is ongoing infringement procedure 4850/2008, which is at stage “reasoned opinion”, because not sufficient designation of Rila IBA as SPA. Nevertheless Bulgaria is one of the countries where almost all IBA network is designated as SPA. With full designation of Rila IBA as SPA the designation obligation would be fulfilled. Main reason for this significant delay were the economic interests for uncontrolled development and use in some of areas (e.g. Black Sea Coast, Pirin and Rila mountain), which caused political pressure and insufficient implementation of Directives by the Government20. Scientific background and full documentation for implementation of art. 4 was in place before the date of accession for the purposes of decision making. Due to the pressure against Natura 2000 in 2007 (see also answer R4 and R.5) the Bulgarian Academy of Science conducted review of all the scientific documentation and confirmed the quality of all the sites in the proposed SPA network and that they has to be protected under the Bird Directive. In terms of implementation of Art.6 (2, 3 and 4), which replace art.4(4) the SPAs are not sufficiently and adequately protected and reasons of for this are the poor implementation and lack of experience at regional and local level, as well as lack of political will21.
Art. 5. Hunting or other use of birds is well regulated. In areas with high hunting pressure around SPAs important for waterfowl congregations, especially Red-breasted goose, additional patrols are organized to control hunting. Bird crime is still un issue although after EU accession there is significant increase of attention and actions of authorities to that problem.
Art. 7 Hunting season of waterfowl is restricted to January ensuring safe migration to breeding grounds. At least two parliamentary initiatives to enlarge the hunting season in Bulgaria have been stopped thanks to the existence of Bird Directive. The last proposal from Patriotic party22 has been rejected by the Parliamentary Commission of Environment.
Art. 10 Enforcement of the Birds Directive encouraged further and more detailed studies on birds on a national, regional and local scale, as detailed studies for example on Imperial Eagle, Saker Falcon, Egyptian Vulture23,24, Red-breasted Goose, national scale surveys on wintering, migratory25 and breeding26 birds, Bird sensitivity to wind farms27. In general thanks to the implementation of the Birds Directive the knowledge on populations, distribution and status of at least 54 bird species of EU concern has improved significantly. 10
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
S.1.2- Is this progress in line with initial expectations? 'Initial expectations' refer to the expectations, positive or negative, held by different stakeholders at the time the legislation transposing the Directives came into force in your country. For example, government reports and plans might provide evidence of intended timetables for the identification and designation of Natura 2000 sites. We are seeking to understand the extent to which progress made to date has met, exceeded, or fallen short of such expectations. If possible, in your answer please address separately each of the objectives referred to in question S1.1 for which you have provided evidence.
Answer: Habitats Directive The progress on objectives listed under S.1.1. is very positive. The process of setting up of conservation objectives in line with art. 4.4 of the HD has fallen short of the expectations, as the process was supposed to be finalised by the end of 2014.
Birds Directive One of the main expectations from the legislation transposing Birds Directive coming into force was the designation of all IBA network by the date of accession. 7 years after the accession, after significant efforts made by NGOs and the Bulgarian Academy of Science, after the infringement procedure run by the European Commission, this expectation is met to a large extent. All IBAs and totally 99.8 % of their surface in Bulgaria have been designated as SPAs. Appropriate management regimes in the designation orders for SPAs are set - this expectation has not been met. The designation orders of SPAs in most of the cases do not provide the key regimes, that need to guide appropriate conservation of sites. The following general measures were proposed to ensure both favourable status of biodiversity and sustainable benefits to the local communities: (1) scientifically-based spatial planning and zonation; (2) better control and proper Environmental Impact Assessment procedures; (3) support for extensive and traditional management practices (incl. appropriate amendment and supplementation of the relative legislation) and effective control for inadequate or illegal practices; (4) mechanisms for proper continuous observation and evaluation of the state of biodiversity within each Natura 2000 site (there is an urgent need of adoption of management plans for all SPAs and SCIs) 28.
S.1.3 - When will the main objectives be fully attained? On the basis of current expectations and trends, please provide evidence that indicates the likely year or range of years that the main objectives will be met. By 'main objectives' we mean the strategic objectives of the Birds Directive (as set out in its Article 2) and the Habitats Directives (in its Article 2), as well as the specific objectives set out in Annex I to this document.
Answer: The specific objective to establish the network is already achieved with minor exceptions like the Lower Rila pSCI and Rila Buffer SPA, expected to happen in 2015.
28 http://www.acta-zoologica-bulgarica.eu/downloads/acta-zoologica-bulgarica/2014/supplement-5-3-8.pdf 11
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Setting up the conservation objectives and designation of SACs was part of the priorities of the MOEW for 201429. The realistic deadline for achieving this objective is by the end of 2015. The main objective of both Birds and Habitats Directives is achieved for number of species which recovery is well documented in Wildlife Come back in Europe report30: in Bulgaria – Brown Bear, White Stork (due to extensification of farming in the period 1987-2007 - before the accession and special conservation measures, preventing burning of nests due electrical lines, artificial nests; the trend could reverse when farming become more intensify and suitable foraging habitats are lost ), Eurasian Spoonbill (because almost all breeding sites are protected areas and Natura 2000 sites), Dalmatian Pelican (because of targeted long term conservation efforts at breeding and wintering sites in Bulgaria started long before accession to EU; One of the key factors is protection of feeding and wintering sites through Natura 2000 network, which ensure protection not only of the breeding colony itself), White-Tailed Eagle (because of targeted long term conservation efforts). According this publication species as Lesser Kestrel and Saker Falcon are recovered in other European countries because special conservation measures taken. If such approach is followed together with other countries under condition of proper implementation of Nature Directives at national scale it might take some more 10-20 years to achieve similar results for Lesser Kestrel and Saker Falcon also in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria more specific and targeted conservation measures start to be taken with implementation of the Birds Directive – identification of SPAs, conducting of studies, implementing practical measures, elaboration of species action plans, preventing bird crime, running multi-country LIFE projects targeted at species. However ongoing challenges e.g. boom of renewables, agricultural practises, hunting lobby in some countries etc. prevents complete achievement of the objectives. In this regard given the fact that new challenges and threats appears it cannot be predicted when the objectives would be fully met. So targeted conservation efforts, preventive protection, cooperation and responsibility is needed to achieve the objectives. Nature Directives gives the opportunity and guidance how it can be achieved and the evidence show that proper implementation will ensure achievement of the objectives.
S.2 – What is the contribution of the Directives towards ensuring biodiversity? In particular to what extent are they contributing to achieving the EU Biodiversity Strategy* Objectives and Targets? By 'contribution towards ensuring biodiversity', we are referring not only to the conservation of the species and habitats specifically addressed by the Directives, but also to biodiversity more broadly defined: i.e. other species and habitats not targeted by the Directives; ecosystems (terrestrial and marine); and genetic diversity, both within and beyond the Natura 2000 network – in line with the EU’s 2050 vision and 2020 headline target and the Targets of the EU's Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. * For an overview of the EU biodiversity Strategy see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/factshee ts/Biod%20Strategy%20FS.pdf
Answer: The Directives are key tools for delivering target 1 of EU Biodiversity Strategy (i.e. Fully implement the Birds and Habitats directives). Member States have acknowledged this in Council Conclusions on the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020; “AGREES that full implementation of the EU environment acquis, and in particular the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, is essential for the achievement of the new EU 2020 Biodiversity targets” Directives are also key for delivering target 2 (Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services),
29 http://www.moew.government.bg/?show=226 30 http://rewildingeurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Wildlife-Comeback-in-Europe-the-recovery-of-selected-mammal-and-bird- species.pdf; for the White Stork – 180-185 p.; Eurasian Spoonbill – 186 – 190 p; Dalmatian Pelican – 192 – 197p.; White Tailed Eagle – 222 – 227 p. 12
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives supporting resilience and connectivity in the wider countryside. For target 3 (Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity), Directives establish a framework for action and monitoring in delivering improvements in the conservation status of agricultural and forest species. Due to the directives requirements the territory under some sort of conservation and/or sustainable management in Bulgaria increased from 5% of national protected areas to about 34% of the Natura 2000 network. These territories host not only species from the Directives Annexes but also a number of other species. Some of them are enlisted in the Standard Data Forms, under the section 3.3. “Other important species of flora and fauna”. As an example is the SDF of Bulgarka SCI BG000039931. The SCIs and SPAs in Bulgaria preserve a majority of other “cornerstone” structures for biodiversity conservation32: “Ancient and old forests Wilderness areas covering about 3-4 % of the national territory – they coincide in a big extent with the national network of Strict national reserves, National Parks and Protected Areas, all of them included in NATURA 2000 network and ensuring better protection (coherence, protection of stepping stones habitats etc.) Birds and Habitats directives ensure appropriate assessment that prevent many threats. The most striking example is wind farm development that was prevented in Southeast of Bulgaria and near Burgas (migration bottle neck site) thus safeguarding populations of many soaring birds. Among the species with population recovery was maintained are Griffon Vulture33 and Imperial eagle34. Thanks to targeted conservation measures the national population of the Imperial Eagle increased by 20% and the breeding success increased by 30%35. The mortality of young birds due to electrocution and poison is outside Natura 2000 still big issue36. Nature-friendly management of semi-natural grasslands (pastures and meadows) in Bulgarian SPAs under the national Agri-environmental schemes (i.e. extensive use, appropriate mowing regime and retention of small percentage of shrubs and trees) was evidenced to benefit the species richness (e.g. 3.53±0.19 species per plot in managed grasslands versus 2.8±0.17 species in not managed grasslands in Ponor SPA; 7.56±0.89 species per plot in managed grasslands versus 4.95±0.43 species in not managed grasslands in Bassaparski Hills SPA) and diversity (e.g. Shannon diversity was 2.28 in managed grasslands versus 1.76 in not managed grasslands in SPA Ponor) of bird communities in these habitats, and increased abundance of bird species from Annex 1 of Bird Directive, such as Corncrake, Wood Lark, Red-backed Shrike, Barred Warbler and Ortolan Bunting37, 38. Protection of old conifer forests by Natura 2000 network was also evidenced to be beneficial for forest birds. For instance in the Pirin SPA, the over-mature (>120 years old) Macedonian pine (Pinus peuce) forest were evidenced to shelter more species and higher bird abundance compared to mature (60-100 years old) forests (i.e. 7.76±0.36 species/ha in over-mature forests vs 6.56±0.31 species/ha in mature forests; 8.13±0.38 birds/ha in over-mature forests vs 7.06±0.34 species/ha in mature forests) 39.
31 BG0000399\ http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/PublicDownloads/Auto/PS_SCI/BG0000399/BG0000399_PS_16.pdf 32 http://www.wwf.bg/what_we_do/forests/bulgarian_forests/ 33 Demerdzhiev D, H.Hristov, D. Dobrev, I. Angelov, M. Kurtev. 2014. Long-term population status, breeding parameters and limiting factors of the Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus Hablizl, 1783) population in the Eastern Rhodopes, Bulgaria Acta Zoologica Bulgarica 01/2014; 66(3):373-384 34 Demerdzhiev D, .Stoychev, D. Dobrev, S. Spasov, S. Oppel. 2014. Studying the demographic drivers of an increasing Imperial Eagle population to inform conservation management. Biodiversity and Conservation 11/2014 35 http://www.saveraptors.org/userfiles/files/Raport_SaveRaptors%20A4_ENG_OK.pdf 36 Demerdzhiev, D. 2010. Mortality Rate in Wild Birds Caused by 20kV Power Lines Electrocution in Six Studied Protection Sites in the NATURA 2000 Network in Bulgaria. Report by the Bulgarian Society for the protection of Birds. BSPB. Sofia. 32 pp. 37 Nikolov, S.C. 2010. Effects of land abandonment and changing habitat structure on avian assemblages in upland pastures of Bulgaria. Bird Conservation International, 20: 200-213. 38 Nikolov, S.C., Demerdzhiev, D. A., Popgeorgiev, G. S. & Plachiyski, D. G. 2011. Bird community patterns in sub-Mediterranean pastures: the effects of shrub cover and grazing intensity. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 34(1): 11-21. 39 Nikolov, S.C. 2009. Effect of stand age on bird communities in late-successional Macedonian pine forests in Bulgaria. Forest Ecology and Management, 257: 580-587. 13
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
S.3 – Which main factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by stakeholders) have contributed to or stood in the way of achieving the Directive’s objectives? Please summarise evidence of the main factors that have supported or constrained progress towards achieving the objectives of the Nature Directives. As in previous questions, by 'objectives' we mean not only the strategic objectives set out in Articles 2 of both Directives, but also specific and operational objectives, as set out in Annex I to this document. Relevant factors might include, for example, resource limitations, lack of cooperation of other actors, lack of scientific knowledge, or other external factors (e.g. those listed in the above intervention logic).
Answer: Factors contributing to the achievement of the specific objective of establishment of the Natura 2000 network in Bulgaria were. 1. NGO community in Bulgaria and its supporters Nature conservation NGOs mobilising external and internal financial support for investigations of potential sites and developing scientific proposals for sites. With partial financial support by the Government they run the entire process of identification of the Natura 2000 sites (both SPAs and pSCIs): involve all the experts in biodiversity in the country, as well as more than 200 birdwatchers and volunteers; collect and analyze enormous amount of bird data40 and data for habitats, plants and other animal species; prepare and submit all the necessary documentation in the timelines set by the Government prior the accession. Then launching an advocacy camping in support of the scientific proposal for the Bulgarian Natura 2000 network, including a complaint to DG Environment 41 for delaying the designation of sites and for insufficient coverage at the beginning of the process. The campaign was supported by citizens groups42. The high level of public support for a large network in the country comes from the low coverage of national protected areas (5%), a level much lower than the average for Europe. Since the accession NGOs are the main supporters of Natura 2000 – running projects to implement practical actions, communicate to local people, participate in legal procedures on EIA, EO and AA with statements, review the investment pressure on Natura 2000 sites and try to prevent violations of EU legislation and damages to Natura 2000 sites or Bird species. For example in order to try to achieve proper implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directive BSPB took following actions in the period 2007 – 2014: submitted two complaints to the European Commission related to failure to fulfil obligations under EU Nature Directives, one of which is now in the European Court of Justice (C-141/14); Submitted more than 50 complaints to the Ministry of Environment at national level against decisions taken, which could cause damage of SPAs; submitted over 80 statements at regional level in relation to concrete projects that could be damaging for Natura 2000 sites; run 20 court cases in relation to projects that are harmful for Natura 2000; participate in the process of transposition of EU nature Directives in Bulgarian law through preparation of drafts of Biodiversity Act and participation of parliamentary discussion; participate in policy making for the sectors of Agriculture, Fishery and Aquaculture, Energy in order to facilitate the process of integration of requirement and objectives of the Directives in the other sectors; implement concrete projects with practical nature conservation actions, support of local farmers and communication with people. 2. Partnership with BirdLife International. The international organization provided knowledge guidance and support for establishment IBA network as a scientific base of SPA network. BirdLife International provided IBA selection criteria43 and guidance44,45 in order to ensure systematic approach
40 Костадинова, И. 2005. Прилагане на критериите С за определяне на Орнитологично важни места от значение за Европейския съюз в България. Предварително прилагане и анализ на празнотите. - В: Петрова, А. (отг. ред.) Съвременно състояние на биологичното състояние в България – проблеми и перспективи. Българска биоплатформа, София, 533-548. – in Bulgarian 41 http://forthenature.org/documents/category/21 42 An example of the many public events organized by active citizens: http://forthenature.org/upload/documents/no-date/izlojba_plakat.jpg 43 BirdLife International. 2000. Imprtant Bird Areas in Europe. Cambridge, UK: Birdlife International, 44 OSIECK, E.R. 1998. Draft Guidance Notes for Selection of Important Bird Areas in European Union Member States and EU Accession Countries (fulfilling the requirements of the Bird Directive with regard to the classification of Special Protection Areas: lessons from Duch case) – Proceedings of European IBA Workshop, 29 March – 2 April 2000, Brussels, Belgium. BirdLife International, Cambridge: 86 14
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives for selection SPAs. Birdlife International and partners provided financial support for collection scientific data needed for site selection and for application and analysis of the criteria46. 3. Implementation by the member state. The Ministry of the Environment (MOEW) set out resources for projects to select and develop the documentation of site proposals. Two of the major projects were carried out by NGOs. Subsequently the MOEW set out additional resources for the review of the project results by the Bulgarian Academy of Science, which confirmed the sufficiency of the network. 4. European Commission as a guardian of the Treaty - DG Environment. 1) provided financial support for increasing the awareness on Natura 2000 through the project PA’99- MP-01747 during the accession process; 2) The pressure put by DG Environment during the process of establishment of the network also contributed to the successful establishment of the network; 3). Through LIFE programme – gives possibilities to implement practical actions for achieving the objectives of the Bird Directive: for example during the period 2007 – 2014 only BSPB run/participate in 8 large scale projects targeted on Annex I species, 33 SPAs, as well as areas outside Natura 200048. One of the projects is successfully completed and endorsed by the Commission in 2014, and the rest are still ongoing; 4) Provided guidance on correct implementation of the Directives in concrete cases both during accession process (Kresna case49), and after accession to EU, mainly through infringement procedures (Insufficiency of SPA network case - 4850/2008, Kaliakra case (Inadequate protection of Kaliakra IBA) – 4260/2008), regular visits to Bulgaria (once per year), as well as meetings with desk officers in Brussels.
Factors which stood in the way to the achievement of specific objectives such as the establishment of the Natura 2000 network. All negative factors we observed have to do with improper implementation or with counteracting other policies - not with the Directives themselves. 1. Enforcement of the support to economic development before Nature legislation came into force in Bulgaria before the accession – pre-accession structural funds available to Bulgaria allow implementation of projects, which are harmful for the future Natura 2000 sites (Kresna case); opening the land market to foreigners before the accession allow of big scale destruction of habitats in future Natura 2000 sites, especially along the Black sea coast for the period 2005 – 2007, because of foreign investors by the land and completely destroy habitats through building hotels (Sunny Beach resort), golf courses (Tracian cliffs), wind farms (wind farms in Kaliakra SPA). Formally the procedures
45 Osieck, E. 2000. Filling in the requirements of the EU Birds Directive: Lessons from the ‘Dutch Case’“. - In: European IBA Workshop. 29 March - 2 April 2000, Brussels, Belgium. Proceedings. BirdLife International, 86-99. 46 Examples: Project “Application of C criteria for identification of Important Bird Areas in Bulgaria” funded by Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality through the PIN/MATRA Funds of the Ministry of Foreign affairs through BirdLife International for the period 2003 – 2005; 47 Project “Increasing the readiness of Bulgaria to establish the European ecological network, NATURA 2000”, funded by PROGRAM PHARE-ACCESS of the European Commission; period of implementation September 2000 – September 2001 48 http://bspb.org/en/projects.html 49 T-PVS/Files(2004)20E / 21 October 2004: https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1326919&SecMode=1&DocId=1 450548&Usage=2 T-PVS/Files(2006)15E / 27 September 2006 : https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1326460&SecMode=1&DocId=1 436748&Usage=2 50 Axis 3 Biodiversity projects, http://ope.moew.government.bg/bg/projects/projectslist/cid/10 51 Schindler, S., Curado, N., Nikolov S.C., Kret, E., Cárcamo, B., Catsadorakis, G., Poirazidis, K., Wrbka, T. & Kati, V. 2011. From research to implementation: nature conservation in the Eastern Rhodopes mountains (Greece and Bulgaria), European Green Belt. Journal for Nature Conservation, 19: 193-201. 52 http://www.novinite.com/articles/146883/Bulgaria+to+Probe+Lack+of+Violations+in+Dunes+Gate 15
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives related to application of art.6 (3 and 4) of Habitat Directive are applicable since the date of accession, so damaging projects were not exposed to detailed and careful assessments, nevertheless that initial SPA network was proposed in beginning of 2005; 2. Lack of political will to develop the conservation objectives at an earlier stage and designate SCIs as SACs thus prevented farmers from applying for the Natura 2000 compensation payments. 3. Lack of capacity the MOEW at national level to fully utilise the available funding from the EU for Natura 2000, ie. the available funds under the Biodiversity Axis 3 in the Environment Operational Programme: 50% of the funds were allocated for national protected areas (only 5%) and only 50% for the wider Natura 2000 network (34%)50; 4. Poor implementation of the directives (lack of knowledge, capacity, political will) - A review study aiming to investigate nature conservation effectiveness in 5 Bulgarian SPAs (904 km2) in the Eastern Rhodopes mountains (based on 743 conservation recommendations extracted from 196 reviewed articles and 39 scientific reports) demonstrated that only 16% of the recommendations were implemented, and only 3.1% were implemented and evaluated regarding their effectiveness (the main reasons for non-implementation and non-evaluation were absence or incompetence of the responsible authorities) 51; 5. Corruption, lack of independent court and prosecution and high level of laundering practices especially in tourism development in Black Sea region and in High Mountains52;
Progress is still achieved despite problems (See replies to S.1.1.) Directives remain the single most effective conservation tool available to the EU and the Member States opposing lack of justice in other fields of governance.
S.4 - Have the Directives led to any other significant changes both positive and negative? This question aims to assess whether the implementation of the Nature Directives has brought about any significant environmental, social or economic effects or changes that were not intended or foreseen by the Directive at the time of their approval, and whether these changes were positive, negative or neutral in terms of their contribution towards meeting the objectives of the Directives. Examples of such effects or changes might include the development of a culture of social participation in nature-related decisions as evidenced by Committees for the development of management plans or higher cooperation of departments of different ministries, etc.
Answer: Positive: 1. Creation and improvement of cooperation between Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment in relation to Natura 2000; The establishment of Natura 2000 network and the inclusion of agri-environmental and Natura 2000 measures in the National Rural Development Programme (NPRD) enforced continuous process of cooperation between the both ministries. Due this cooperation process a lot of challenges were identified that have to be solved in order to comply with EU legislation. For 7 years of EU membership some of the issues were resolved and some were improved. The measures include in the recent NPRD more fully comply with the requirement of the Nature Directives; the capacity of Ministry of agriculture to manage and control these measures increased; 2. Cooperation between ministries in planning for proper future management of Natura 2000. Another example of positive change is the co-operation between the different ministries for the development of the Prioritized Action Framework (PAF), which sets out the necessary measures for the management of Natura 2000 network and the sources of funding ranging from national budget to the different EU Funds. The major allocations of funds for Natura 2000 are in the Environmental Operational Programme managed by the MOEW and the Rural Development Programme managed by 16
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The development of the PAF required co-ordination and agreement between the two institutions53; 3. Improving legislation related to SEA, EIA and AA procedures: The infringement procedure 4260/2008 run by the European Commission against Bulgaria because of non-adequate protection of Kaliakra SPA due to wind farm and other development enforced Bulgaria to take measures required by the Recommendation 130(2007) of the Bern Convention54 which led to improvement of both legislation and implementation of procedures for preventive protection (SEA, EIA and AA) both in and outside Natura 2000: 1) An amendment was made of the ordinances for application of EIA and AA procedures, which gives period of validity of all the consents issued (especially those which rule that the project does not need EIA/AA) 55,56. This is a significant step for solving the problem of hundreds of approved wind turbines or other developments since 2005, that are not constructed yet. 2. The Government run a qualitative SEA procedure for the National Action Plan for Development of Renewable Energy Sourced and restricted wind farm development in areas which are of high importance for birds in and outside Natura 2000 (see again the reports T- PVS/Files(2012)40E and T-PVS/Files(2012)16E); 4. Improvement of the conditions of direct selling of products by local farmers. Thanks to implementation of agri-environmental measures at Natura 2000 sites and providing help to farmers57, new regulation was adopted in Bulgaria, which allow all farmers in and outside Natura 2000 to sell their products directly to the market: “Ordinance amending and supplementing Ordinance 26 of 2010 for the specific requirements for direct supply of small quantities of raw materials and foodstuffs of animal origin”58; 5. Benefits for local business Certain business advertise the fact that their production comes from Natura 2000 sites as added value59; 6. Benefits from environmental services. A significant change brought about by the implementation of the Directives is the protection of environmental services, which bring environmental, social and economic benefits to society. Recent WWF Bulgaria publications give examples from two Natura 2000 sites.60 7. Culture and social benefits. An example for a culture of social participation was the case of the public participation in the public hearing process of a small Hydropower Plant project on the Yantra River, where fishermen’s clubs, local people, national NGOs united and sent out position papers for the protection of their river. The results was that Yantra River, Reka Yantra SCI, BG0000610 is free flowing, not only maintaining the conservation status of the fish, but also providing recreation services for anglers, kayakers and local people61. Civil Initiative "Save Velingrad municipality, as an
53 The PAF in BG (Национална приоритетна рамка за действие (НПРД): http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/Home/Documents 54 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1485557&Site=&BackColorInternet=B9BDEE&BackColorIntranet=FFCD4F&BackColorLogged=F FC679 55 T-PVS/Files(2012)40E / 16 October 2012 (Page 3): https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2169301&SecMode=1&DocId=1 924330&Usage=2 56 T-PVS/Files(2012)16E / 25 October 2012 (Page 4): https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=2169277&SecMode=1&DocId=1 874720&Usage=2 57 BSPB project “Conservation of globally important biodiversity in high nature value semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy” funded by GEF for the period 2007 – 2011.: Brann J., A. Bardarov. 2012. Conservation of globally important biodiversity in high nature value semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy. Terminal Evaluation of Medium-sized project GEF ID 2730. GEF Agency. p 25 (point105).: DOC_4_UNDP_BulgariaGrasslands_TE_FINAL_clean_26MAY12.pdf of the attached evidence) 58 Bulgarian State Gazette 46 of 3.6.2014 59 Wine advertised as produced “near Oryahovo, on the steep slope of the Danube River…part of a Natura 2000 site” http://megatrade.bg/Shato-Burgozone-Sovinyyon-blan-0-75l 60 Brochure “PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES -a new opportunity “- in BG and WNG http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/raceprotect.pdf 61 A post in Fisherman forum about the Yantra case as seen by the anglers http://forum.fishing-mania.com/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=62445 17
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives environmentally clean region without mining" (https://www.facebook.com/zavelingrad ) unifying municipal authorities, local spa and hotel business and environmental NGOs from the town of Velingrad in the Rhodope Mountains at the vicinity of the SCI Rodopi – Zapadni BG0001030 were supported by the application of Article 6.3 of Directive 92/43. At this stage, although it is outside the SCI borders a development of tungsten mine that local regarded as dangerous for the region is stopped for article 6.3 evaluation because of Directive 92/4362. 8. Jobs created for biodiversity conservation (directly and indirectly) Implementation of Nature Directives create jobs for people directly or indirectly involved in conservation of biodiversity and Natura 2000. For example for the period 2007 – 2014 only BSPB created over 30 new permanent jobs related to conservation of birds and Natura 2000 and employed over 750 experts and technical workers on a temporary base for implementation of certain actions both in and outside Natura 2000. One of the biggest projects of the Ministry of Environment, related to mapping of habitats and species in Natura 2000 engaged more than 500 experts and field workers for period of two years.
62 Press Release of the Ministry of Environment and Water for their decision under Art. 6.3 in terms of tungsten mine near Velingrad http://www.moew.government.bg/?show=news&nid=2907 18
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Efficiency Efficiency is essentially a comparison between inputs used in a certain activity and produced outputs. The central question asked here is whether the costs involved in the implementation of the EU nature legislation are reasonable and in proportion to the results achieved (benefits). Both 'costs' and 'benefits' can be monetary and/or non-monetary. A typology of the costs and benefits resulting from the implementation of the Directives is given in Annex II to this questionnaire. In your answers, please describe the nature, value and overall significance of the costs and benefits arising from the implementation of the Directive, supported by evidence.
Y.1 - What are their costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary)? Based on the explanation given above, please indicate, supported by evidence, what types of costs and benefits have resulted from the implementation of the Nature Directives. Please provide evidence, quantitative where possible, of costs and benefits, describe their nature (monetary/non-monetary) and value, and who is affected and to what extent. Please distinguish between the costs and benefits arising from the Directives themselves and those arising as a result of other factors. To facilitate analysis of the answers it would be useful if costs and benefits could be addressed separately.
Answer: Type of costs: 1. Research for site designation 2. Natura 2000 administration 3. Costs for the business for carrying out appropriate assessments 4. Research for assessing conservation status 5. Costs for practical conservation measures – restoration or maintaining favourable conservation status Costs for Natura 2000 for Bulgaria are estimated as 39,64 €/ha. The PAF, pp 45 – 63 give information for the EU funds for biodiversity related measures. Information available for the other listed types of costs. These costs however represent at the same time direct benefit for Bulgarian economy, as they are/will be used by farmers, small business in infrastructure development, scientific research and conservation work.
Non-monetary benefits: 1. Conservation of species and habitat types: for example national population of Imperial Eagle has increased by 20% (see answer S.2) and 200 ha of its grassland habitats are managed in a traditional way63; directly improved status of at least 36,000 ha of permanent grasslands64 and influence (trough the policy and regulations ensured) on all grasslands in Bulgaria (350,000 ha); improved population status and population numbers of 8 waterfowl species in 3 Natura 2000 sites65. 2. Opportunities to develop green jobs at much more places compared to the period before the
63 BSPB. 2013. “Save the Raptors” Layman’s Report. BSPB.: http://www.saveraptors.org/userfiles/files/Raport_SaveRaptors%20A4_ENG_OK.pdf 64 BSPB project “Conservation of globally important biodiversity in high nature value semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy” funded by GEF for the period 2007 – 2011.: Brann J., A. Bardarov. 2012. Conservation of globally important biodiversity in high nature value semi-natural grasslands through support for the traditional local economy. Terminal Evaluation of Medium-sized project GEF ID 2730. GEF Agency. p 5 (point 10). 65 BSPB. 2014. “Life for the Burgas Lakes” Layman’s Report. BSPB.: DOC_5_Laymen_report_LIFE_for_the_Bourgas_Lakes.pdf of the attached evidence 19
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Directives were applied especially in sectors like tourism and agriculture (see also answer S4, point 8). 3. Protection of recreational values of the landscape and nature raising from 5% of national protected area to 34% of Natura 2000 coverage. 4. Protection of species and habitat types secured through the Directives actually provides protection for resources of tourism. An example of this is the case of the Master Spatial Plan of Tsarevo Municiaplity, which envisaged construction and development of 75% of the coastal habitats of Strandzha SCI (BG0001007) and SPA (BG 0002040)66. A complaint was launched to DG Environment and after pressure from the EC the spatial plan was rejected. This result is of great benefit for tourism because in order to meet the requirements of the Black Sea Spatial Regulation, the current number of beds already corresponds to the coverage of sand beaches. Any further construction and development would have ruined the balance between number of tourist and capacity of beaches67. 5. Water resources conservation. River Basins Management Plans (RBMP) developed in line with the WFD integrate measures for conservation/restoration of rivers from Natura 2000 in a Favourable Conservation Status. Especially after assessment under Art. 6.3 of the RBMP the problem of reducing the cumulative negative effects of the hundreds of small hydropower plants already constructed on the Mountain Rivers in SCIs. The plans set out measures to improve the conservation status of affected habitats and species. As added value this would lead to direct social benefits - to improve the condition of these rivers for water users from various sectors - agriculture, tourism, fishing and housing (e.g. drinking water), as they all suffered so far serious damage68. 6. Support to local economy and improving quality of goods at the market. Natura 2000 provide opportunities to farmers and local business to get access to the market (See answer S.4, point 4 and 5) and provide label for quality of the products.
Monetary types of benefits 1. A WWF Bulgaria commissioned an analyses of a specific ecosystem service such as the carbon sequestration in Lomovete. The analysis was made through the alternative costs method, which showed that the proper management of the forest ecosystems in Rusenski Lom Nature Park, Lomovete SCI BG0000608 (native species only) with area of 615 ha saves emissions equal to the investment of 3,5 mln. BGN in mounting gas-fuelling units on petrol cars69; 2. A 2014 study titled “The Economic benefits of the Natura 2000 Network” found that the benefits that flow from Natura 2000 are of the order of €200 to 300 billion/year. This study estimated that there are between 1.2 to 2.2 billion visitor days to Natura 2000 sites each year, generating recreational benefits worth between €5 and €9 billion per annum70; 3. Certain measures from the Rural Development Programme 2007-2014 provided for higher payments for farmers with farms within Natura 2000 sites. The level of payments were between 20 and 70 €/ha71; 4. Local and regional development Activities for implementation of the requirements of Bird and Habitats Directives brings incomes for local and regional development. For example only two of LIFE projects contributed to economy of Bulgaria (mostly local and regional) 3,4 mln € for the period 2008 – 2014 (both financial support from EU and own finances of implementing organisations)72.
66 A map for the spatial plan indicating the areas envisaged for construction http://forthenature.org/upload/documents/2009/01/carevo_small.JPG 67 http://forthenature.org/documents/category/4/start/20 68 http://prozrachniplanini.org/discussion/view/50/146 69 http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/wwf_rusenski_lom_report_english.pdf 70 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf
27http://prsr.government.bg/Admin/upload/Media_file_bg_1315956839.pdf 71 28http://forthenature.org/documents/category/4/start/20 72 BSPB. 2013. “Save the Raptors” Layman’s Report. BSPB. and BSPB. 2014. “Life for the Burgas Lakes” Layman’s Report. 20
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Y.2 - Are availability and access to funding a constraint or support? This question focuses on the proportion of identified funding needs that has been or is being met by EU and Member State funding, respectively, the extent to which the level of available funding affects the implementation of the Directives and enables the achievement of their objectives (as set out in Annex I to this questionnaire), and the extent to which initial funding allocations for nature under EU funding instruments were used as well as any factors which may have favoured or hindered access to and use of funds. In your answer please consider whether funding constraints affect costs or create administrative burdens (eg as a result of limitations on guidance or delays in decision making).
Answer: Positive For the funding period 2007 – 2013 the funding available under axis 3 Biodiversity of the Environment Operational Programme was 103 308 048 mln. € 73. Bulgaria has never had such funds available for biodiversity before joining the EU. In addition 108 mln. € were available for Natura 2000 compensation measures under the Rural Development Programme. The funding available under the EOP was fully sufficient in order to implement activities aiming to achieve specific objectives such as Ensure SCIs and SACs are subject to site management and protection. In terms of positive developments for example – the funds allowed the implementation of large scale projects for the mapping and assessment of the conservation status of HD habitat types and species (about 13 mln. €)74. The results were used by the MOEW in order to provide data for the 6 years monitoring under the Habitats Directive in line with under art.17. The way the process was organized by the MOEW was criticised by conservation NGOs, however the fact that such funds are dedicated for this purpose is a step in the right direction. During this period no funding needs assessment has been carried out. For the next funding period 2014 – 2020, the funding needs estimated for Biodiversity and Natura 2000 for Bulgaria in the PAF is 1 583 636 583,00 €. These funds are ensured (planned) from all available EU funds, national budget and funds under agreements within the European Economic Area and the Swiss Cooperation Programme at the time for preparation of PAF (2013). For now we do not have indications that the planned funds for biodiversity and Natura 2000 has changed due to changes of individual operational programmes and funding mechanisms.
Limitations Insufficient funds, which lead to insufficient government capacity to implement the directives, as well as stopping other stakeholders to take proper actions. For example for the funding period 2007 – 2013 concentrating 50% of the funds in just 5% of the national territory and not distribute evenly to the whole of Natura 2000 networks (34% of the country) is a setback due to lack of political will. Administrative capacity is definitely insufficient. However, there are additional funds under technical assistance which could have been used to strengthen the capacity of the MOEW and should be used in the future. Difficult access to funds for NGOs which are main drivers of implementation of the nature directives in Bulgaria for now. The finances for biodiversity and Natura 2000 (implementation of EU Nature Directives) at EU structural funds are under one umbrella with the finances for water treatment and waste management. In Bulgaria it is managed under operational programme “Environment”. Because of incorrect spending of money in water treatment projects of some municipalities in Bulgaria the European Commission blocked the Operational Programme for Bulgaria for about a year (2013 –
73 29EOP document in English: http://ope.moew.government.bg/files/useruploads/files/ope_text_eng-2.pdf 74 http://ope.moew.government.bg/en/projects/projectdetail/cid/10/id/207?active=1 21
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
2014), thus it blocked the implementation of actions targeted Natura 2000 protection as well, especially preparation of management plans for Natura 2000 sites.
Y.3 - If there are significant cost differences between Member States, what is causing them? This question seeks to understand the factors that affect the costs of implementing the Directives, whether there is evidence of significant cost differences between Member States, and the causes of these cost differences. In your answer, please describe the cost differences and the reasons for them (e.g. whether they arise from specific needs, circumstances or economic factors), supported by quantitative evidence. Do these differences lead to differences in impact? Please note that Question Y.5, below, focuses on good practices in keeping costs low. For this Question Y.3 we are interested in evidence of overall differences in implementation cost (see typology of costs in Annex II to this questionnaire) along with the reasons for them.
Answer: • Diverse national circumstances (sites type, land use, location, ecological status, pressures, labour and wage costs, management strategies), the level of current data, and different cost assessment approaches and methodologies explain differences in the cost estimates across Member States75.
Y.4 - Can any costs be identified (especially regarding compliance) that are out of proportion with the benefits achieved? In particular, are the costs of compliance proportionate to the benefits brought by the Directives? Please provide any quantitative evidence you may have demonstrating that the costs of implementing the Directives exceed the benefits. Do the Directives require any measures which give rise to significant costs but which bring about little, or only moderate benefits?. If so, please explain the extent to which any imbalances are caused by the Directives themselves, or by specific approaches to implementation.
Answer: There is no evidence that the costs of implementing the Directives exceed the benefits. On the contrary current studies indicated exactly the opposite. International examples are: • Evidence suggests that the financial benefits of compliance far outweigh both current expenditure by Member States on nature conservation, and estimates of the financial costs of full implementation76; • A study commissioned by the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department and published in 200477 proved that Current full conservation protection of all 300 N2K sites throughout Scotland (i.e. policy-on) has an overall benefit cost ratio (BCR) of around 7 over a 25- year period; • A Finnish study from 2009 shows that the wildlife-watching enterprises employed, in all, 43 man-years; and of these, the share of actual bear watching was about 17 man-years. The mean turnover of the enterprises was 215 000 euros with wide range.78 And that “Of the enterprises,
75 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf 76 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf 77 https://www.cbd.int/doc/case-studies/inc/cs-inc-uk4-en.pdf 78 http://www.rktl.fi/www/uploads/pdf/uudet%20julkaisut/selvityksia_15_2009.pdf 22
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
80% suppose that bear-watching tourism will increase by means of present enterprises expanding their activities”. Bulgarian examples are: • A WWF Bulgaria commissioned an analyses of a specific ecosystem service such as the carbon sequestration in Lomovete. The analysis was made through the alternative costs method, which showed that the proper management of the forest ecosystems in Rusenski Lom Nature Park, Lomovete SCI BG0000608 (native species only) with area of 615 ha saves emissions equal to the investment of 3,5 mln. BGN in mounting gas-fuelling units on petrol cars79; • Certain measures from the Rural Development Programme provided for higher payments for farmers with farms within Natura 2000 sites. The level of payments were between 20 and 70€/ha; • Natura 2000 network established thanks to the Directives have brought a critical benefit for society through providing opportunities for recreation and health. The report, Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health80, prepared by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) and the World Health Organization (WHO) in February 2015, demonstrates that the relationship between biodiversity and human health is extensive and complex. It outlines the ways that the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity has positive impacts on human health, including through impacts on water and air quality, nutrition, non-communicable and infectious diseases, and medicines, among others. One of the conclusions is that “Health is our most basic human right and therefore one of the most important indicators of sustainable development. At the same time, the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is imperative for the continued functioning of ecosystems at all scales, and for the delivery of ecosystem services that are essential for human health”.
Y.5 - Can good practices, particularly in terms of cost-effective implementation, be identified? Here we are looking for examples of where the objectives of the Directives are being met more cost- effectively in some Member States or regions than others, and the reasons for these differences. It is important to understand whether they are due to particular practices (rather than, for example, differences in needs, circumstances or economic factors) that have kept costs relatively low. We would welcome examples of differences in practices between Member States in implementing the requirements of the Directives, including initiatives designed to achieve cost-effective implementation, and evidence of whether these initiatives or practices have reduced costs in certain Member States or regions.
Answer: There are many examples that show that the Directives can be implemented in a cost effective way: 1. For example efforts for the preservation of nature as it is are much less expensive than restoration. Bulgaria is among the top countries in Europe in terms of biodiversity. For thousands of years man has coexisted with two of the large carnivores of the continent – the Brown Bear and the Wolf. Costs to continue and maintain this co-existence are much lower than cost for the reintroduction of these species. Therefore costs under the project spent for actions for brown bear conservation and measures
79 http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/wwf_rusenski_lom_report_english.pdf 80 http://www.cbd.int/getattachment/health/stateofknowledge/SOK-Summary-Finalv4_reduced-%282%29.pdf 23
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives to improve man - carnivore co-existence is an example of good practices81. 2. In Western Europe, species such as Bombina variegata, Emys orbicularis, Lutra lutra are brought to complete extinction or are critically endangered. Bulgaria is a country with significantly preserved natural ecosystems. Therefore these species are still with good distribution and conservation status and we do not need to invest significant resources to restore their conservation status as in other countries. It is only necessary to strictly apply Art. 6.2 and 6.3 and adopt real preventive policies for the protection of their conservation status of the level in which they were at the time of SCI designation.82 3. Strategic planning at national and regional level reduces the costs and delays for future investments: A) The SEA of the National Action Plan for Development of Renewable Energy Sources 2014 – 2020 created set of requirements and appoint areas with high unacceptable risks for future investments in different types of renewable, which guide the investors and avoid unnecessary costs and delays; B) Spatial Plan of Sofia Capital Municipality incorporated requirements of Natura 2000 into the spatial planning, including creation of green infrastructure which ensure connectivity between sites. It allows preventing potential harmful investments to be put in the plan. Some of the planned facilities were moved at earlier stage which prevents unnecessary or high risky investments in the future.
Y.6 - What are likely to be the costs of non-implementation of legislation? This question seeks to gather evidence on the impacts of non-implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, and its associated costs, whilst assuming that some measures would be taken to conserve nature. Taking into account current national measures that do not arise directly from obligations under the Directives, please describe and, if possible, quantify, with supporting evidence, the potential impacts and associated costs of non-implementation of the Directives, for instance on: habitats and species of Community interest and wider biodiversity; ecosystem services (eg in relation to carbon sequestration, areas for recreation); and economic and social costs (eg jobs and health).
Answer: 1. Financial costs arising from the EU’s failure to fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives and to achieve its 2020 biodiversity targets have been estimated to be in the order of €50bn per year.83 2. The impact on businesses from the uncertainty about implementation of the environmental legislation could be substantial.84 3. The potential impact for Bulgaria will be that there will be no legal obligation to sustainably manage and conserve 34% of the country. The associated consequences will be that there will not be as security for all the benefits coming from the protection of environmental services. 4. In particular, non-implementation of Natura 2000 could lead to the following negative socio- economic changes: complete overdevelopment of the Black Sea coast and destruction of the perspective for sustainable development of tourism along the coast; destruction and overexploitation of rivers by small hydropower plants and extraction of inert materials - which will damage concomitant opportunities for activities such as recreational fishing, tourism, traditional mountain farming in small gardens in the river terraces; over exploitation of forests and especially ancient forests and damage to the water supply functions. Indirect indication about the cost of non-implementation of the Directives can be found in the construction building developments at the areas outside SPAs and SFIs in Bulgaria. During the
81 http://www.lifextra.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1&lang=it 82 Internet site of the Ministry of Environment with National reports on mapping and FCS of habitats and species on national level http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/Home/Documents 83 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_sept2011.pdf 84 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_sept2011.pdf 24
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives construction ‘boom’ in 2005-2010 due to the limited restrictions on these territories were spent millions of Euros for constructing of tens of holidays’, resort and resident villages on thousands of hectares territory, most of which even in 2015 are non-inhabited, abandoned, or in ruins. Besides the immense funds, spent for their construction, great amount of arable or other high value lands were lost, biodiversity was heavily damaged or destroyed, large natural or semi-natural territories were covered with concrete and other anthropogenic materials which should be at certain time removed from there (with significant financial resources, probably again reaching millions of Euros).
Y.7 - Taking account of the objectives and benefits of the directives, is there evidence that they have caused unnecessary administrative burden? This question seeks to gather evidence of any unnecessary burden arising from the administrative requirements of the Directives for different stakeholders (MS authorities, businesses, landowners, non- governmental organisations, citizens). Administrative burdens are the costs to businesses and citizens of complying with information obligations resulting from legislation, and relate to information which would not be collected in the absence of the legislation. Some administrative burdens are necessary if the objectives of the legislation are to be met effectively. Unnecessary burdens are those which can be reduced without affecting the objectives. Quantitative evidence may include typical requirements in terms of human resource inputs, financial costs (such as fees and wages), delays for development and other decision-making processes, and other measures of unnecessary or disproportionate burden the administrative costs in terms of effort and time, and other inputs required, financial costs, delays and other measures of unnecessary or disproportionate burden.
Answer: There is no evidence that the Directives itself have caused or are causing unnecessary administrative burden. Such data have not been collected in Bulgaria. In the UK • The UK Government’s Habitats Regulations Review85 found that: It was clear from the wide range of evidence and views submitted in the course of the Review that in the large majority of cases the implementation of the Directives is working well, allowing both development of key infrastructure and ensuring that a high level of environmental protection is maintained.
Y.8 - Is the knowledge base sufficient and available to allow for efficient implementation? This question seeks to establish the extent to which adequate, up-to-date and reliable information required to implement the Directives efficiently is available, such as information related to the identification, designation, management and protection of Natura 2000 sites, the choice of conservation measures, the management and restoration of habitats, the ecological requirements of species and the sustainable hunting/use of species, permitting procedures, etc. Please indicate key gaps in available knowledge relating to your country and, if relevant, at biogeographical and EU levels. If possible, please provide evidence that inadequacies in the knowledge base have contributed to the costs and burdens identified in previous questions.
Answer:
85 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69513/pb13724- habitats-review-report.pdf 25
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
As indicated above under Y2 the Bulgarian MOEW invested almost 13 m. € from the Operational Programme “Environment” for a large scale project to provide for information on the conservation status of species and habitat types. NGO criticism for the project was for the inconsistency of implementing the methodologies for mapping and assessment. Despite arguments on some of the results of the assessment the effort of the MOEW has to be recognized in view of the coverage of the Bulgarian network and the number of species designated for the conservation of 90 habitat types from Annex 1 of the HD and 121 species (from 900 for the EU) from Annex II of the HD. In addition a large scale project has been launched for monitoring outside the Natura 2000 network with funding from the EOP with a budget of almost 5 mln. €.86 The project aims to cover the knowledge gaps biodiversity on the territory of the whole of the country outside the Natura 2000 network. Funds are insufficient to cover all the knowledge gaps, i.e. much more extensive efforts are needed to obtain sufficient and reliable data on the Eurasian Lynx, a secretive animal with low numbers, which has started to come back after being extinct for decades. However allocating these funds is a good start, as we are aware that not so many MSs have dedicated such funds on covering the knowledge gaps for Natura 2000. The country has a robust scientific capacity to implement arts.6.2 and 6.3 of Directive 92/4387.
86 http://eea.government.bg/bg/bio/opos 87 Guidance for identifying habitats of European importance in Bulgaria (Annex 1 of the Directive): http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/natura2000_bg_field_guide2005_bg.pdf
National guidelines for defining Favorable Conservation Status developed for Annex 1 habitats and Annex 2 species: www.bbf.biodiversity.bg/document-188
National guidelines for forest management in Natura 2000 developed and they are the basis for the preparation of rules in the corresponding articles in the forest regulations: http://www.moew.government.bg/files/file/Nature/Natura%202000/Zakoni_naredbi_guidance/Upravlenie_gori_po_natura_2000.pdf
National guidelines for management of priority forest habitats is developed: http://forestgenefund.eu/filebank/att_24.pdf
Guidance on inventory and management of deadwood in forest ecosystems: www.greenbalkans.org/document-1946
Manual for Promoting Agri-environment Measures in Natura 2000 sites in Bulgaria: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/manual_n_2000_last_2.pdf
Developed model management plans for SCIs and SPAs (BG0000608 http://www.wwf.bg/news_facts/publications/ ; BG0000152 and BG0000620 http://www3.moew.government.bg/files/file/Press/aktualno/ 2009 / PU_Pomoriisko_ezero.pdf; BG0002086: http://plovdiv.riosv.com/files/file/OPOS/PU_Calapica.pdf ; BG0000399 http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/proekt_pu_zz_bulgarka.doc )
Zonning Map of territory of Bulgaria in terms of possibility for wind farm development. Bird Sensitivity map: http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/PublicDownloads/Auto/OtherDoc/276299/276299_Birds_120.pdf
Guidance for conservation of wild birds in a process of wind farm development in Bulgaria: http://natura2000.moew.government.bg/PublicDownloads/Auto/OtherDoc/276295/276295_Birds_120.pdf
26
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Relevance Relevance concerns the extent to which the objectives of the nature Directives are consistent with the needs of species and habitats of EU conservation concern. The question of relevance relates to whether the objectives of the legislation are still necessary and appropriate; whether action at EU level is still necessary in light of the challenges identified and whether the objectives and requirements set out in the EU nature legislation are still valid.
R.1 - Are the key problems facing species and habitats addressed by the EU nature legislation? By ‘key problem’, we mean the main pressures and threats that species and habitats face, which are significantly widespread in terms of their incidence (geographic extent) and/or magnitude/severity. Do the Nature Directives respond adequately to these problems? Are the specific and operational objectives of the Directives suitable in light of the key problems identified? Please justify your answers with evidence.
Answer: The key threats to species and habitat types like habitat loss due to land use changes, disturbance due to improper management practices, and fragmentation due to infrastructure development. They are addressed by the Habitats Directive as it provides for MSs to work to achieve or maintain the favourable conservation status of habitats and species, which specifically require avoiding significant negative impact. The example of the Brown Bear protection in Bulgaria illustrates that the specific objectives of the directives respond adequately to these problems. The Bear Action Plan adopted in 2008 estimates that the habitats of the species covered by the Natura 2000 network are 66,1% for the Alpine Biogeographical region and 82,4% for the Continental88.
Another example is pressures and threats impacting species and habitats dependant on rivers and streams, and the construction of small Hydropower plants (sHPPS). This process has started along with the designation of the NATURA 2000 network, in parallel with the scientific research in 2003-2006, boundaries of sites were determined and databases filled89. In parallel more than 100 such plants were built in the SCIs, which began operating shortly before or after EU accession and the designation of these areas. The process of sHPPs construction began before the entry into force of the Directive, however it lead to significant negative impact of conservation status of a number of species listed in Annex 2 since 2007 after the Directive became operational. Entry into force of the procedures under Art. 6.3 however significantly slowed the construction of new plants, and after 2010 the River Basins Management Plans were adopted where the art. 6.3 consents included measures to restore the conservation status of the species in all affected SCIs.
R.2 - Have the Directives been adapted to technical and scientific progress? With this question, we are seeking to examine the implications of technical and scientific progress regarding the habitats and species that the Directive focus on. Please summarise, and provide any evidence you may have that indicates that the annexes listing habitats and species in both Nature Directives are, or are not, sufficiently updated to respond to technical and scientific progress.
88 http://www3.moew.government.bg/files/file/Nature/Biodiversity/Valeri/AP_U.arctos_BG_2008-2017.pdf 89 GIS of permitted and constructed small Hydropower plants: http://gis.wwf.bg/rivers/ 27
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Answer: 1. The annexes of the Birds and Habitats Directive have incorporated new habitats and species of community importance as a result of successive EU accessions, also ensuring adequate coverage of the Natura 2000 network in the new EU Member States. 2. The Natura 2000 network, which is based on the annexes, delivers a wide range of benefits for non- target species (see also question S.2). Where site protection and management is properly carried out, sites provide significant umbrella effect protecting also non listed species and habitats. Similarly, again where properly implemented, species protection under the Birds and Habitats Directive brings benefits to habitats hosting the listed species and to other species associated with them. Much of the problems affecting non listed species are really down to poor implementation of the Directive in their current form. One Bulgarian example is the Balkan trout, a species not listed in Annex 2 of the HD, but occurring in many SCIs. In art.118g.(1).4. of the Water Act bans the new construction of new small Hydropower Plants (sHHPs)90. This measure was introduced because of the problems arising from the massive construction of sHPPs in Natura 20000 sites constructed without proper fish passes, preventing migration of Annex 2 fish species.
R.3 How relevant are the Directives to achieving sustainable development? This question seeks to examine the extent to which the Directives support or hinder sustainable development, which is about ensuring that the needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It requires ensuring a balance between economic development, social development and environmental protection. In your answer, please provide evidence of the impacts that implementation of the Directives has had in relation to these three 'pillars' of sustainable development.
Answer: One of the pillars of sustainable development is environment, and the Birds and Habitats Directives represent the cornerstone of EU efforts to deliver environmental sustainability through conservation of biological diversity. They remain central to the achievement of sustainable development in the EU. With their restricting effect both Directives prevented to some extent the ‘wild’ development of buildings and other infrastructure construction in Bulgaria, where because of the newly established democracy there are still little effective social instruments and practices (including underdeveloped civil society), which are important factors for sustainable development. In many cases (Pirin, Vitosha, wind turbines in Eastern Rhodopes, etc.) the Directives were the only tool used to prevent large-scale projects, which would destroy key biodiversity values and which would be cases of clear predominance of the large business interests and heavy unbalance with the sustainable social development and environmental protection. The Strandzha case described in detail above in Y1 is an illustration of how due to the Habitats Directive and Natura 2000 was protected the coastline of Strandzha SCI and SAC. Prevention of construction and development for environmental protection grounds secured the protection of resources important for the economic and social wellbeing of the area. This case helped prevail the interests of the tourism sector over the interests of the construction and real estate business. The Yantra River case described in detail above in S4 as an example of how a whole community of anglers, kayakers and local people used the instrument for Natura 2000 protection in order to secure the protection a very important environmental service - a free flowing river providing opportunities for recreation and health activities, which is a big step for social development. During the process of establishment of the network in Bulgaria construction companies organised protests against the network claiming that Natura 2000 designation is actually “nationalisation” if lands and turning the territories into a reserve. However there were mayor of municipalities who
90 http://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2134673412 28
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives developed position papers in support of the network. One example is the letter of the mayor of Nevestino, a small municipality in the Kyustendil District91: “The municipality of Nevestino believes that the designation of the Site of Community Important (Skrino SCI, BG0001013) will help for the conservation of the valuable nature of this part of Bulgaria and in this way will help protect the resources for sustainable tourism.” In 2006 the National Association of Hunters and Anglers sent a letter to the Council of Ministers protesting against the plans to exclude territories around the Dospat Dam from the proposed Natura 2000 network92. Their argument was that the area is valuable both for the purposes of hunting and angling but also for recreation, therefore the protection would be of value not only for their members by also for the general public. An initiative committee from the village of Popintsi sent out a letter to the Bulgarian government in support of the network and insisting to include a proposed Popintsi site93 as a guarantee against the destruction of nature.
R.4 - How relevant is EU nature legislation to EU citizens and what is their level of support for it? The aim of this question is to understand the extent to which citizens value the objectives and intended impact of the EU nature legislation. To this end, we would like to obtain information and evidence on the extent to which nature protection is a priority for citizens (e.g. in your country), including in comparison with other priorities; for example whether citizens (e.g. in your country) support the establishment and/or expansion of protected areas, the extent to which they access/use them or; the extent to which citizens are involved in any aspect of the implementation of the Directives (e.g. participation in the development of management plans of protected areas or decisions concerning the permitting of projects which have an impact on protected areas). Please note that the Birds and Habitats Directives may be relevant to citizens even if they do not actually know of their existence or the existence of the Natura 2000 network.
Answer: It has to be mentioned that just before the accession to EU, in 2006, a negative attitude to Natura 2000 was created by investors at some of the sectors (e.g.construction business, energy, mass tourism along the Black Sea Coast and in mountains of Rila and Pirin). The main concerns of the local citizens were related to stopping of development and prosperity of local people, even restrict access to the land in Natura 2000 (like “no go area”), taking the land from people, no right to build in Natura, no benefits, etc. This was the result of well organised black PR campaign that aimed to put the public opinion against Natura 2000, because without Natura 2000 the control on the environmental impact of investment project is much weaker. A large scale information campaign started at that time, where in each region all the aspects of implementation of the Birds and Habitats directives, including Natura 2000, was presented, with special attention of the expected objectives, regimes and conservation measures in Natura 2000, as well as the opportunities for people. These efforts, as well as similar campaigns later on changed quickly the attitude of people to Natura 2000. The local citizens and communities were the ones that first adopted a positive attitude to Natura 2000, after the scientists and nature conservationists. For the local authorities and business it took much longer time to appreciate Natura 2000, but today there are already businesses which include Natura 2000 protection in their policy and even participate in joint efforts to nature
91 http://forthenature.org/upload/documents/no-date/Nevestino_pismo1.pdf 92 http://forthenature.org/upload/documents/no-date/lovnorib_pismoNatura2000_1.pdf 93 http://forthenature.org/upload/documents/no-date/pismo_NaturaPetelovo.pdf 29
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives conservation94. The examples bellow clearly shows that for 8 years of implementation of Nature Directives, the attitude of Bulgarian citizens about their relevance and importance for conservation of Bulgarian Nature and their quality of life increases continuously: EU Barometer survey of attitudes towards biodiversity published November 2013 showed that “Almost no respondents in the United Kingdom (1%), Italy and Ireland (both 2%) have heard of the network and know what it is, compared with nearly half of respondents in Bulgaria (45%)95” The same survey (page T30) showed that 86% of Bulgarian respondents think that Natura 2000 areas are “very important”. A WWF survey from 201496 asked respondents whether they think that nature conservation hinders economic development, page4, 70% answered negatively (39% answering “No” + 31% answering “On the contrary, it helps). An opinion poll commissioned as part of the project for updating the Management Plan of Pirin National Park, also a Natura 2000 site, BG0000209 under both directives, asked local people “Do you support nature conservation actions, if at first they have unfavourable social and economic consequences for the area of the settlement”. The answer was 71% positive – absolutely YES – 33,2%, and rather YES – 38,5%97. The awareness of local communities in 15 SPAs under the LIFE project “The Return of the Neophron (LIFE10 NAT/BG/000152)” is growing and the attitude in general is positive (main interest is related to financial interests from development of the region including subsidising under agri-environmental payments related to target species and habitats under the Directives) 98.
R.5 - What are citizens’ expectations for the role of the EU in nature protection? The aim of this question is to obtain information and evidence on questions such as: whether citizens submit complaints or petitions to the EU requesting its involvement on cases regarding nature protection, whether citizens expect the EU to become more involved in promoting nature protection, or whether nature protection should be left to each individual Member State; whether citizens expect the EU to introduce laws on nature protection to be applied in all Member States equally or whether the EU should limit itself to coordinating Member States’ initiatives; whether the EU should focus on laying down rules, or whether the EU should more actively promote their monitoring and enforcement in Member States.
Answer: First expectations of citizens to EU nature legislation, before entrance to EU was rather negative, because of the lack of information about what the aims of the Nature Directives are (see answer R.4). Launching information campaigns was one of the successful tools for changing the attitude of people to Nature Directives, but at the same time raised the expectations of people. They expect more effective protection of nature, better and more robust implantation of legislation in order to secure nature values of their regions and enable them to have healthy environment and more opportunities for their local business and initiatives, including tourism and recreation. Nature conservation organizations submitted statements and complaints to encourage full enforcement of Directives and national legislation, organized also campaigns, that are supported by local citizen groups (see answer S.3, point 1). Bulgaria has been a member of the EU for 8 years, and during that time there were a number of complaints for violations of nature conservation directives both on horizontal issues, and for specific
94 BSPB. 2013. “Save the Raptors” Layman’s Report. BSPB. and BSPB. 2014. “Life for the Burgas Lakes” Layman’s Report. 95 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_379_en.pdf 96 http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/wwf_nature_reservation_public_att_dec13_jan14.pdf 97 http://prozrachniplanini.org/f/0/prezentaciq-sociologichesko-prouchvane-pu-pirin-20141128.pdf 98 ESTAT Agency. 2014. Assessment of the awareness and attitude to the Egyptian vulture. Technical report in relation to the project LIFE10 NAT/BG/000152 (www.LifeNeophron.eu). Sofia. 217 p. 30
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives problems with compliance of the nature directives in individuals sites. Cases are: insufficient designation of Natura 2000 network99 of SCIs, insufficient SPA designation (infringement case 4850/2008; see also answer S.1.1.), lack of protection of grasslands; individual cases: Pirin, Rila, Irakli100, Kaliakra (infringement case 4260/2008; see also answer S.1.1.), Strandzha, Bulgarka. The individual cases are for the approval of plans and projects which in our opinion would have a significant negative impact on the conservation status of habitats and species and integrity of the respective sites. The Irakli case illustrates best the expectations of the public. In 2006, this case makes NATURA 2000 "hot topic" in the media and makes this network known in Bulgaria. A public expectation is that Natura 2000 will stop the illegal construction of nature along the Black Sea and the European Commission would help.101 A September 2015 report of EU Barometer ATTITUDES OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSTOWARDS THE ENVIRONMENT shows that six out of ten respondents think that environmental decisions should be taken jointly between national governments and the EU102. 82% of Bulgarians agree that European environmental legislation is necessary for protecting the environment in their country (with 77% EU average).
99 http://www.google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEwQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenbalkans.or g%2Fdocument- 2035&ei=D6gCVcHdEaHQygOLtID4BQ&usg=AFQjCNFvMhMEN18q5CEhbT25surMeNaYpw&sig2=jxp2531Sf3fyq_3SM0YQ3w 100 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/eu_infringements_to_bulgaria.pdf 101 Newspaper article in English on the topic Irakli of the period http://sofiaecho.com/2008/08/15/662942_irakli-case-goes-back- to-ec-as-camping-gets-banned-again 102 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_416_en.pdf
31
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Coherence
Evaluating the coherence of legislation, policies and strategies means assessing if they are logical and consistent, internally (i.e. within a single Directive), with each other (i.e. between both Directives), and with other policies and legislation. Here we are looking for evidence regarding how far and in what ways the Directives are complementary and whether there are significant contradictions or conflicts that stand in the way of their effective implementation or which prevent the achievement of their objectives.
C.1 – To what extent are the objectives set up by the Directives coherent with each other? This question focuses on coherence between objectives within each Directive, and/or between objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives. It covers not only the strategic objectives but also the specific and operational objectives set out in Annex I to this document. Based on experience in your country/region/sector, please provide evidence of any inconsistencies between the objectives that negatively impact on the implementation of the Directives.
Answer: • Objectives are consistent and together create a coherent legislative framework for nature conservation; • Each Directive establishes its own reporting framework, each harmonized with the other in terms of reporting requirements and timings; • On a national level there is no evidence on inconsistencies between the objectives that negatively impact on the implementation of the Directives.
C.2 – To what extent are the Directives satisfactorily integrated and coherent with other EU environmental law e.g. EIA, SEA? This question is similar to the previous question, but focuses on the extent to which the EU Nature Directives are coherent with and integrated into other EU environment legislation, and the extent to which they are mutually supportive. EU environment legislation of particular relevance to nature conservation includes the following: • Strategic environmental assessment of policy plans and programmes 2001/42/EC Directive (SEA) • Environmental impact assessment of projects 85/337/EC Directive as codified by Directive 2011/92/EU (EIA) • Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, (WFD) • Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD) • Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (FD) • National Emission Ceilings Directive 2001/81/EC (NECD) • Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC (ELD). This question considers how the main provisions and measures set out in these instruments interact with the EU nature legislation, including whether there are potential gaps or inconsistencies between these instruments and the EU nature legislation, for example whether the current permitting procedures are working in a coherent way or whether they are acting as barriers to achieve the EU Nature Directive’s objectives; whether the assessments required under the different pieces of EU
32
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives legislation, in particular under the EIA, are aligned or whether there are differences which result in additional administrative burden; whether any identified gaps and inconsistencies are due to the texts of the Directives or due to implementation in your/a Member State.
Answer: There are no relevant problems, at least not arising out of the Nature Directives. Nature directives are coherent with other parts of EU environmental law / policy. The Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive found that legal coherence between the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Water framework Directive is clear, “although the interaction on the ground needs interpreting on a case by case basis by the Member States.”103 For example - Art. 31 (4) of the Bulgarian Biodiversity Act104 specifically provides for the coordination with the Environmental Protection Act transposing the requirements of the SEA and EIA Directives with the requirements of the HBD: the appropriate assessment procedure shall be carried out in parallel with the SEA/EIA procedures. The infringement procedure system of the European Commission, as a guardian of the Treaty, play key role in cases where for some reasons the EU Nature legislation is not implemented, because also encourages improvement of national legislation and procedures (see answer S.4, point 3).
C.3 - Is the scope for policy integration with other policy objectives (e.g. water, floods, marine, and climate change) fully exploited? This question is linked to the previous questions as it addresses the extent to which the objectives of the Nature Directives have been integrated into or supported by the objectives of other relevant EU environment policies. However, this question focuses more on policy implementation. The other EU legislation and policies targeted in this question are the same as those referred to under question C.2, as well as climate change policy. When answering this question, please note that the scope of integration refers to the integration from the EU Nature Directives to other policies as well as to the extent in which the objectives of these other policies are supported by the implementation of the Nature Directives.
Answer: 1. Biodiversity will be more resilient to climate change, more able to adapt, if we maintain our ecosystems in a healthy state. This will be vital also to human adaptation to climate change, because our prosperity and wellbeing depend on the services that healthy ecosystems supply.
103
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/pdf/SWD-2012-393.pdf 104 http://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135456926 105 http://www3.moew.government.bg/files/file/Climate/Climate_Change_Policy_Directorate/Treti_nacionalen_plan_za_deistvie_po_izmene nie_na_klimata.pdf 33
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
2. Natura 2000, which aims to maintain habitats and species in favourable conservation status, is in this context a critical climate change adaptation measure. Our protected area network provides space for nature and helps sustain nature’s ‘adaptation options’. 3. Climate change policies in Bulgaria also integrate the Natura 200 requirements. The third National Plan for Emission Reduction until 2020, item 3.1.5., page 67 sets out that the national goal of 10% share of biofules in the transport consumption up to 2020 cannot be achieved unless the sustainably ctitaria are not met. Resources could not be produced in a biodiversity rich land or in the Natura 2000 network105. 4. Appropriate Assessment Decisions of Bulgarian River Basin Management Plans align the WFD and the HD by imposing a limitation on the further construction of new small Hydro-power plants (sHPPs), which makes this a statutory requirement for the implementation of the Management Plans106.
C.4 – To what extent do the Nature Directives complement or interact with other EU sectoral policies affecting land and water use at EU and Member State level (e.g. agriculture, regional and cohesion, energy, transport, research, etc.)? In this question we are aiming at gathering evidence on whether the provisions of EU nature legislation are sufficiently taken into account and integrated in EU sectoral policies, particularly in agriculture, rural development and forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, cohesion or regional development, energy, raw materials, transport or research policies. It also addresses whether those policies support and act consistently alongside EU nature legislation objectives Please provide specific examples which show how the Nature Directives are coherent with, or conflict with, relevant sectoral legislation or policies. Please be as precise as possible in your answers, e.g. pointing to specific articles of the legislation and how they support or contradict requirements or objectives of other legislation or policies, stating what are main reasons or factors for the lack of consistency and whether there are national mechanisms in place to monitor coherence.
Answer: Special efforts are made to achieve complementarily of the Agriculture policy to the objectives of Nature Directives, as the agriculture is a sector dealing with land and thus directly affects species and habitats. The National Rural Development Programme (NRDP) is key policy document that ensure this complementarily, for example: Measure 12 “Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments” (art 30) from Regulation (ЕC) № 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council from 17 December 2013 about the support and development of rural areas financed by the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is totally based on the Council Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. In Bulgaria this measure started to be implemented under Rural Development Program (RDP) 2007 – 2013 in 2011 and is going on in the new RDP 2014 – 2020 with submesure 12.1 - compensation payment for Natura 2000 agricultural areas. For measure 12 “Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments” the areas designated to implement Council Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC and the obligations for farmers resulting from the corresponding national and/or regional management provisions are described in the designation orders of 119 protected zones for the birds. Indication of the link between the implementation of the measure12 “Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments” from RDP 2014-2020 and the Prioritized Action Framework (Art 8(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC): Priority Action Framework (PAF) for Natura 2000 in Bulgaria, the multiannual financial period 2014-
106 http://www.bd-dunav.org/uploads/content/files/konsultacii-s-obshtestvenostta/izgotviane-na-PURB/SWOT/OS_BD1_October_2009.doc 34
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
2020: Funding of PAF by RDP 2014-2020 will be prioritized under 1,2,3,4, and 5 priorities and the respective sub-priorities by NPRD involving 34 measures. The measures are intended not only conservation status of species and habitats, but will have an effect on climate change, carbon sequestration, sustainable tourism and employment. Further examples for specific examples are given above in answer to C2 and C3.
C.5 - How do these policies affect positively or negatively the implementation of the EU nature legislation In this question, we are keen to gather evidence on whether agriculture and rural development, fisheries and aquaculture, cohesion or regional development, energy, raw materials, transport and research policies have a positive or negative impact on the achievement of the objectives of nature legislation. Please provide specific examples/cases (including infringement cases or case law), which demonstrate clear conflicts or incoherencies between sectoral policies and EU nature legislation, and/or examples showing how specific policies influence the implementation of the Nature Directives in a positive or negative way, for example in relation to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (see Annex I to this questionnaire). Where possible, please include evidence of the main factors influencing the positive and negative effects. Please consider in your answer what ex ante and ex post evaluation procedures are applied to ensure that this coherence is implemented or supervised.
Answer: EDFRD is an important funding mechanism to secure appropriate management of Natura 2000 sites (as required under the Habitats Directive) and to provide a sufficient diversity and area of habitat for birds listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive. Whilst the quality of schemes currently on offer across the EU varies considerably, there is clear evidence that well designed, targeted and funded schemes can have a significant and positive effect on biodiversity (although it must be noted that such schemes represent a disappointingly small proportion of schemes overall). Measures under the Bulgarian Rural Development Programme are specifically aiming to integrate biodiversity conservation requirements into the agricultural sector. The most obvious examples are the Agri-environmental Measure and the Natura 2000 compensation measure envisaged in the past and current EU funding periods. Measure “Aquaculture Payments” in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Programme also integrate requirements for the conservation of HS habitats and species.
A new article is created in the ordinance, that regulates implementation of NRDP107: “Art. 16e. (New - SG. 22 of 2014, effective 01.10.2014, amended. - SG. 16 of 2015) (1) The Ministry of Agriculture and Food creating in the Identification system for agricultural parcels(ELPIS) a specialized layer "Permanent grassland", which includes existing at the time of its creation grasslands with a minimum of 0.1 hectares, which: 1. Have permanent use of the Card restored property - pastures, meadows and other grassland; (2) The specialized layer "Permanent grassland" includes existing grasslands that are environmentally sensitive areas covered by Council Directive 92/43 / EEC and Directive 2009/147 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council; (3) The specialized layer "Permanent grassland" is intended to: 1. Maintain existing permanent grassland by plowing and conversion”; This layer is incomplete and does not include the actual scope of the grasslands in the framework of Natura 2000.
107 Ordinance № 105 OF 22 AUGUST 2006 For the terms and conditions for creating, maintaining, accessing and using Integrated Administration and Control System by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry ..Amend. and supplemented. DV.br.16 of 27 February 2015 35
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
C.6- To what extent do they support the EU internal market and the creation of a level playing field for economic operators? This question seeks to gather evidence of the implications of the EU Nature Directives for economic operators in terms of whether they help ensure a level playing field across the EU (e.g. by introducing common standards and requirements for activities carried out in or around Natura 2000 areas or otherwise depend on natural resources protected under the Directives), predictability and legal certainty (e.g. helping to avoid that developments are blocked due to 'Not In My Backyard' type challenges), or whether they negatively affect the internal market.
Answer: Environmental standards are key for the proper functioning of the single market in purely economic terms as they help set a level playing field across the EU, and prevent any one member state deriving an unfair short-term competitive advantage by destroying its environment. EU environmental standards achieve this by establishing minimum standards for environmental protection that apply across all EU Member States. This also serves to provide certainty for businesses operating across the EU, that the rules applicable to them are the same in all Member States. Businesses that wish to trade within any EU Member State must comply with these rules whether they are based in the EU or outside.
C.7 – To what extent has the legal obligation of EU co-financing for Natura 2000 under Article 8 of the Habitats Directive been successfully integrated into the use of the main sectoral funds? This question builds on question Y.2 on the availability and access to funding, but aims at examining whether Member States have sufficiently identified the funding needs and are availing of EU funding opportunities to meet the requirements of Article 8 of the Habitats Directive. EU co-funding for the Natura 2000 network has been made available by integrating biodiversity goals into various existing EU funds or instruments such as the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), European (Maritime and) Fisheries Fund (EFF / EMFF), Structural and Cohesion funds, LIFE and Horizon 2020. In your reply, please distinguish between different sources of funding.
36
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Answer: In the 2007 – 2013 financial period Natura 2000 co-financing was well integrated into the Regional Development Fund (through the EOP) European Rural Development (through the BG RDP)and Fisheries Fund (through the BG Fisheries and Aquaculture Programme), but the funds were not fully utilised. The Priorities Action Framework has better integrated the opportunities under the current funding period 2014 – 2020. Integration exists on paper, it is an issue of providing good political will for good administration in order to fully utilise the existing opportunities. For example measure 214 “Agri-environmental payments” under RDP 2007 – 2013 and its direction “Maintenance of habitats of protected species in arable lands in important bird areas (IBA) have several agri-environmental activities towards globally threatened bird species developed by BSBP. Results from applying for the agri-environment activities of measure 214 in 2013 year show that: Results from applying for the agri-environment activities of measure 214 in 2013 year108: - Agri-environment activity to maintain habitats of wintering geese: total number of applicants in activity is 131, with a total area under this AE activity – 13,851.93 ha; - Agri-environment activity to maintain habitat of the Imperial Eagle and Egyptian vulture – converting arable land into grasslands: total candidates - 20, with a total area 240,21 ha;
C.8 - Are there overlaps, gaps and/or inconsistencies that significantly hamper the achievements of the objectives? This question refers to overlaps, gaps and/or inconsistencies in the different EU law/policy instruments regarding nature protection. It therefore depends largely on the results of other questions related to the coherence of the Nature Directives with other EU law and policies. When answering this question you may want to consider whether the identified overlaps, gaps and inconsistencies hamper the achievement of the Directive’s objectives (e.g. see Annex I to this questionnaire).
Answer: There are no gaps or inconsistencies within the Directives themselves that hamper achievement of the objectives. The difficulties with enforcement of Nature Directives in Bulgaria are caused mainly by nature f implementation of national legislation (non-implementation, partial implementation, misinterpretation, lack of political will, insufficient capacity109).
C.9 - How do the directives complement the other actions and targets of the biodiversity strategy to reach the EU biodiversity objectives? With this question we seek to collect evidence on ways in which the implementation of measures under the Birds and Habitats Directives that are not explicitly mentioned in the EU Biodiversity Strategy, help to achieve actions and targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. For example, restoration of Natura 2000 sites can significantly contribute to helping achieve the goal under Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems.
Answer: There are numerous examples of nature conservation projects contribute to reach all actions and targets from the Biodiversity Strategy. The list can be very long.
108 According to information specially provided by the Ministry of Agriculture to BSPB with letter, their external number 06-2-001- 2600 /18 31.07.2013 109 Duprey, B. 2014. Natura 2000: Bulgaria’s Paper Park. A dissertation submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy of Central European University in part fulfilment of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Budapest. 276 pp 37
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
An example for the contribution of the TARGET 5: Combat Invasive Alien Species for the Biodiversity Strategy is implementation of specific Natura 2000 related projects. A recently completed project LIFE08 NAT/BG/000281"Conservation and Restoration of 11 Natura 2000 Riparian and Wetland Habitats in 10 SCI's in Bulgarian Forests" helped clear 59.38 ha of invasive alien species in 4 sites110. Many other examples can be given for projects working towards this goal. See also answer Y.5, point 3 in relation to Sofia Spatial Plan and safeguard green infrastructure. An example for a project contributing to Action 6: Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green infrastructure from the Biodiversity Strategy is the restoration of the Kaykusha wetlands in the Persina SCI. This was implemented by WWF Bulgaria and Persina Nature Park Directorate within the project GREEN BORDERS - Cross-border conservation of Phalacrocorax pygmeus and Aythya nyroca at key sites in Romania and Bulgaria LIFE07 NAT/RO/000681111. Projects in Natura 2000 sites contributing to Action 5: Improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU of the BS are given under questions S4 and Y1.
C.10: How coherent are the directives with international and global commitments on nature and biodiversity? This question seeks to assess whether and how the EU nature legislation ensures the implementation of obligations arising from international commitments on nature and biodiversity which the EU and/or Member States have subscribed to112, and whether there are gaps or inconsistencies between the objectives and requirements of the EU nature legislation and those of relevant international commitments, including the way they are applied. For example, the Directives’ coherence with international agreements which establish targets relating to nature protection and/or require the establishment of networks of protected areas.
Answer: Birds and Habitats Directives are Cornerstones of EU efforts to conserve biological diversity. They are the main tools for delivering on the EU’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and other international conventions, including the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species and accompanying agreements, and the Bern Convention on European Habitats. Establishment of the Natura 200 network is a particular contribution to the Programme of Work for Protected Areas of the Convention on the Biological Diversity113, especially Goal 1.1: “To establish and strengthen national and regional systems of protected areas integrated into a global network as a contribution to globally agreed goals.” The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organisation, assesses European Protected Areas as “of key importance in the global context“114. It gives recognition of Europe’s success stories and position Europe as a leader in protected areas management.
110 http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/laymans_report_eng_final_web_3.pdf 111 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3362&docType=pdf 112 e.g. Bern Convention; Convention on Biological Diversity; Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; Ramsar Convention; European landscape Convention; CITES Convention; CMS (Bonn) Convention; International Convention for the protection of Birds; Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds; Regional Sea Conventions (Baltic, North East Atlantic, Mediterranean and Black Sea). 113 http://www.cbd.int/protected/pow/learnmore/intro/ 114 http://www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/europe/european_union/key_issues/natura2000__europes_protected_areas_network/?1 8408/European-Protected-Areas-of-key-importance-in-the-global-context 38
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
EU Added Value Evaluating the EU added value means assessing the benefits/changes resulting from implementation of the EU nature legislation, which are additional to those that would have resulted from action taken at regional and/or national level. We therefore wish to establish if EU action (that would have been unlikely to take place otherwise) made a difference and if so in what way? Evidence could be presented both in terms of total changes since the Directives became applicable in a particular Member State, in changes per year, or in terms of trends.
AV.1 - What has been the EU added value of the EU nature legislation? When responding to this question, you may wish to consider the following issues: What was the state of play or the state of biodiversity in your country at the moment of the adoption of the Directives and/or your country’s entry into the EU? To what extent is the current situation due to the EU nature legislation? In answering this question, please consider different objectives/measures set out in the Directives (eg regarding protected areas, species protection, research and knowledge, regulation of hunting, etc, including their transboundary aspects).
Answer: Bulgaria is a striking example of the EU added value of the EU nature legislation particularly because of the fact that had it not been for the Habitats Directive, protected areas in the country would have been left at the level of 5% of the national terrestrial territory. Emblematic species for the continent like the Brown Bear, which are extinct from many EU countries, would not have had the necessary level of protection. Birds Directive guarantees that hunting act is in compliance with migration and breeding season of the birds. EU funding through Operation program Environment and LIFE program and other mechanisms contribute significantly for increasing the knowledge on species status and threats. Bird and Habitat Directives provided for first time in Bulgaria mechanism for coordinated measures for conservation of a network of protected sites, as a coherent instrument for bird conservation – Natura 2000.
AV.2 - What would be the likely situation in case of there having been no EU nature legislation? This question builds on question AV.1. In answering it, please consider the different objectives/measures set out in the Directives (eg. whether there would be a protected network such as that achieved by Natura 2000; whether the criteria used to identify the protected areas would be different, whether funding levels would be similar to current levels in the absence of the Nature Directives; the likelihood that international and regional commitments relating to nature conservation would have been met; the extent to which nature conservation would have been integrated into other policies and legislation, etc).
Answer: Criteria used to establish the Natura 2000 network were systematic base aiming at sufficiency of the coverage of habitat types and habitats of species, whereas the setting up of the national protected areas between in Bulgaria was not systematic, on an ad hoc basis, case by case, leaving groups of habitat types outside the network. An example for this is lowland forests115. This came out as one of the issues during the implementation of the WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology - Management Effectiveness
115
http://www.wwf.bg/news_facts/publications/ 39
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Assessment of Bulgarian national and nature parks from 2004. The most important of implementation of Nature Directives is that the coverage of protected territories was increased from 5% of coverage of national protected areas to almost 34%116. Funding levels for national protected areas prior to the establishment of Natura 2000 and EU funding were 15,496 207€ annually, whereas only from the EOP Biodiversity funding was 103,308 048 million €117.
AV. 3 - Do the issues addressed by the Directives continue to require action at EU level? When answering this question the main consideration is to demonstrate with evidence whether or not EU action is still required to tackle the problems addressed by the Directives. Do the identified needs or key problems faced by habitats and species in Europe require action at EU level?
Answer: Action at EU level is further necessary, since without pressure from the EC many nature conservation measure would not be taken. The most recent example was the pressure exercised by DG Environment on the government in January 2014 not to adopt the Spatial Plan of Tsarevo Municipality affecting the Strandzha SCI BG0001007 and SPA BG0002040. Evidence for the activity of the commission is a reply to a question from the European parliament118.
116 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm 117 http://ope.moew.government.bg/en/pages/obshta-informatsia-za-opos/4#1 118 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2014-000987&language=EN 40
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Annex 1: Objectives of the Directives
Overall To contribute to ensuring biodiversity through conservation of Europe's most valuable objective and threatened habitats and species, especially within Natura 2000 Birds Directive Habitats Directive Strategic Art. 2: Maintain the population of all Art 2: Maintain or restore natural habitats Objectives species of naturally occurring wild birds and species of Community interest at a in the EU at a level which corresponds favourable conservation status (FCS), taking in particular to ecological, scientific into account economic, social and cultural and cultural requirements, while taking requirements and regional and local account of economic and recreational characteristics. requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level. Specific Art. 3: Preserve, maintain or re-establish Art 4: Establish Natura 2000 – a coherent Objectives a sufficient diversity and area of network of special areas of conservation habitats’ for birds, primarily by creating (SACs) hosting habitats listed in Annex I) protected areas, managing habitats and habitats of species listed in Annex II), both inside and outside protected sufficient to achieve their FCS across their areas, re-establishing destroyed natural range, and SPAs designated under biotopes and creating new ones. the Birds Directive. Art. 5: Establish a general system of Art. 6: Ensure SCIs and SACs are subject to protection for all birds. site management and protection. Art. 7: Ensure hunting does not Art 10: Maintain/develop major landscape jeopardize conservation efforts and features important for fauna and flora complies with the principles of wise use Art. 12-13: ensure strict protection of species and ecologically balanced control of listed in Annex IV. the species concerned. Art. 14: ensure the taking of species listed in Annex V is in accordance with the maintenance of FCS. Art. 22: Consider the desirability of reintroducing species listed in Annex IV that are native to their territory. Measures/ Site Protection system Site Protection system Operations Art. 4: Arts. 4 & 5: Select Sites of Community objectives 4(1): Designate Special Protection Importance (SCIs) and SACs, in relation to Areas (SPAs) for threatened species scientific criteria in Annex III. listed in Annex I and for regularly Art. 6(1): Establish necessary conservation occurring migratory species not listed in measures for SACs. Annex I, with a particular attention to Art. 6(2): [Take appropriate steps to?]Avoid the protection of wetlands and the deterioration of habitats and significant particularly to wetlands of international disturbance of species in Natura 2000 sites. importance. 4(3): Ensure that SPAs form a coherent Plans or projects whole. Art. 6(3/4): Ensure, through an ‘appropriate 4(4): [Obligations under Art 6(2), (3) and assessment’ of all plans or projects likely to (4) of Habitats Directive replaced have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 obligations under first sentence of 4(4)]. site, that those adversely affecting the Outside SPAs, strive to avoid pollution or integrity of the site are prohibited unless deterioration of habitats. there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Species protection system Art. 6(4): When plans or projects adversely Art. 5 (a-e): Prohibit certain actions affecting the integrity of a site are relating to the taking, killing and nevertheless carried out for overriding deliberate significant disturbance of reasons, ensure that all compensatory wild birds, particularly during the measures necessary are taken to ensure the breading and rearing periods. overall coherence of Natura 2000. Art. 6: Prohibit the sale of wild birds except of species listed in Annex III/A Financing 41
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives and, subject to consultation with the Art. 8: Identify required financing to achieve Commission, those listed in Annex III/B. favourable conservation status of priority Art. 7: Regulate hunting of species listed habitats and species, for the Commission to in Annex II and prohibit hunting in the review and adopt a framework of aid breeding and rearing seasons and, in measures. the case of migratory birds, on their return to breeding grounds. Landscape features Art. 8: Prohibit the use of all means of Art 10: Where necessary, encourage the large-scale or non-selective capture or management of landscape features to killing of birds, or methods capable of improve the ecological coherence of the causing the local disappearance of Natura 2000 network. species, especially those listed in Annex IV. Surveillance Art 9: Provide for a system of Art. 11: Undertake surveillance of the derogation from protection of species conservation status of habitats and species provisions under specified conditions of Community interest.
Research Species protection system Art. 10: Encourage research into Art 12 & 13: Establish systems of strict relevant subjects, especially those listed protection for animal species and plant in Annex V. speces of Annex IV prohibiting specified activities. Non-native species Art. 14: Take measures to ensure that Art 11: Ensure introductions of non- taking/ exploitation Annex V species is native species do not prejudice local compatible with their maintenance at FCS flora and fauna. Art. 15: Prohibit indiscriminate means of capture/killing as listed in Annex VI. Reporting Art. 16: Provide for a system of derogation Art 12: report each 3 years on from protection of species provisions under implementation specified conditions
Reporting Art 17: report on implementation each 6 years, including on conservation measures for sites and results of surveillance.
Research Art. 18: undertake research to support the objectives of the Directive.
Non-native species Art. 22: ensure that introductions of non- native species do not prejudice native habitats and species.
42
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Annex 2: Typology of cost and benefits This annex sets out a typology of costs and benefits resulting from implementation of the Nature Directives in the EU, which need to be considered in the evaluation.
Typology of Costs
The evaluation will consider costs which result directly and indirectly from the Directives, including both monetary costs (i.e. involving direct investments and expenditures) and non-monetary costs (involving additional time inputs, permitting delays, uncertainty and missed opportunities).
It will include both the compliance costs of the legislation, and any opportunity costs resulting from missed or delayed opportunities for development or other activities. Compliance costs can be further divided into administrative costs and costs of habitat and species management. Examples of each of these types of costs are set out in Table 1.
Administrative costs refer to the costs of providing information, in its broadest sense (i.e. including costs of permitting, reporting, consultation and assessment). When considering administrative costs, an important distinction must be made between information that would be collected by businesses and citizens even in the absence of the legislation and information that would not be collected without the legal provisions. The costs induced by the latter are called administrative burdens. Evidence of these costs will include: • Monetary estimates of investments required and recurrent expenditures on equipment, materials, wages, fees and other goods and services; and • Non-monetary estimates of administrative time inputs, delays, missed opportunities and other factors affecting costs.
Typology of benefits The evaluation will collect evidence on the direct and indirect benefits derived from EU nature legislation, which include benefits for biodiversity and for the delivery of ecosystem services, and the resultant effects on human well-being and the economy.
The ecosystem services framework provides a structured framework for categorising, assessing, quantifying and valuing the benefits of natural environmental policies for people. However, it is also widely recognised that biodiversity has intrinsic value and that the Directives aim to protect habitats and species not just for their benefits to people, but because we have a moral duty to do so. In addition, consideration of benefits needs to take account of the economic impacts of implementation of the legislation, including effects on jobs and output resulting from management activities as well as the effects associated with ecosystem services (such as tourism).
A typology of benefits is given in Table 2. Assessment of the benefits of the Directives for biodiversity is a major element in the evaluation of their effectiveness. Effects on ecosystem services will be assessed in both:
• Biophysical terms – e.g. effects on flood risk, number of households provided with clean water, number of visitors to Natura 2000 sites etc.; and • Monetary terms – e.g. reduced cost of water treatment and flood defences, value of recreational visits, willingness to pay for conservation benefits.
43
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Evidence of economic impacts will include estimates of expenditures by visitors to Natura 2000 sites, employment in the creation and management of the Natura 2000 network, and resultant effects on gross value added in local and national economies.
Typology of costs resulting from the Nature Directives
Type of costs Examples
Administrative costs • Site designation, including scientific studies, administration, consultation etc. • Establishing and running of management bodies • Preparation and review of management plans • Public communication and consultation • Spatial planning • Development casework, including time and fees involved in applications, permitting and development casework affecting habitats and species, including conducting appropriate assessments • Time and fees involved in compliance with species protection measures, including derogations • Research • Investigations and enforcement Habitat and species management costs Investment costs: • Land purchase • Compensation for development rights • Infrastructure for the improvement/restoration of habitat and species • Other infrastructure, e.g. for public access, interpretation works, observatories etc. Recurrent costs - habitat and species management and monitoring: • Conservation management measures– maintenance and improvement of favourable conservation status for habitats and species • Implementation of management schemes and agreements with owners and managers of land or water • Annual compensation payments • Monitoring and surveillance • Maintenance of infrastructure for public access, interpretation etc. • Risk management (fire prevention and control, flooding etc.) Opportunity costs • Foregone development opportunities resulting from site and species protection, including any potential effects on output and employment • Delays in development resulting from site and species protection, and any potential effects on output and employment • Restrictions on other activities (e.g. recreation, hunting) resulting from species and site protection measures
44
Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives
Typology of Benefits Type of benefit Examples Benefits for species and habitats Extent and conservation status of habitats Population, range and conservation status of species Ecosystem services Effects of Directives on extent and value (using a range of physical and monetary indicators) of: • Provisioning services – food, fibre, energy, genetic resources, fresh water, medicines, and ornamental resources. • Regulating services – regulation of water quality and flows, climate, air quality, waste, erosion, natural hazards, pests and diseases, pollination. • Cultural services – recreation, tourism, education/ science, aesthetic, spiritual and existence values, cultural heritage and sense of place. • Supporting services – soil formation, nutrient cycling, and primary production. Economic impacts Effects of management and ecosystem service delivery on local and national economies, measured as far as possible in terms of:
• Employment – including in one-off and recurring conservation management actions, as well as jobs provided by tourism and other ecosystem services (measured in full time equivalents);
• Expenditure – including expenditures by visitors as well as money spent on conservation actions;
• Business revenues – including effects on a range of land management, natural resource, local product and tourism businesses;
• Local and regional development – including any effects on investment, regeneration and economic development; and
• Gross Value Added – the additional wages, profits and rents resulting from the above.
45