INNOVATIVE USE OF EU FUNDS TO FINANCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES & ACTIVITIES IN NATURA 2000 SITES - A collection of good practise examples - Final report August 2009 Output of the EC project Contract No.: 070307/2007/484403/MAR/B2 In collaboration with: The report was: Coordinated by: Alberto Arroyo Schnell, Andreas Baumueller (WWF) With support from Erik Gerritsen (WWF) and Marianne Kettunen (IEEP) Language editing by: Janice Weatherley This report should be quoted as follows: WWF & IEEP. 2009. Innovative use of EU funds to finance management measures and activities in Natura 2000 sites. Output of the project Financing Natura 2000: Cost estimate and benefits of Natura 2000. WWF, Brussels, Belgium. 103 pp. + Annexes. The contents and views contained in this report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the Environment Directorate-General of the European Commission. Published July 2009 by WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund). Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit of the above-mentioned publishers as the copyright owners. © Text 2009 WWF. All rights reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS................................................................................................................3 I INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................4 II AIMS & CONTENT OF THIS REPORT .............................................................6 III METHODOLOGY USED TO IDENTIFY AND COMPILE THE SELECTED CASE STUDIES ....................................................................................8 IV MAIN FINDINGS ..................................................................................................9 1 RIVER VARDE VALLEY AND THE MEADOWS OF HO BAY................13 2 INTEGRATED RIVER MANAGEMENT OF THE WESER ESTUARY: RE-NATURALIZATION AND RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT......................23 3 HEVES LOWLAND (HEVESI SÍKSÁG)........................................................28 4 SPECIES RELATED ACTIONS IN THE ISLAND OF TENERIFE...........37 5 THE ARRAN ACCESS PROJECT..................................................................47 6 “COSY PLACES” – AN EXHIBITION OF TYROLEAN FARMERS’ FAVOURITE NATURAL PLACES........................................................................56 7 TARN VALLEY, CAUSSE NOIR & DOURBIE GORGE ............................66 8 ACTION PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE EGYPTIAN VULTURE AND CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR LESSER KESTREL, BLACK KITE, AND RED KITE .............................................................................76 9 DEVELOPING ECO-TOURISM ACTIVITIES IN PROTECTED AREAS IN THE MORAVA FLOODPLAIN AREA ............................................................84 10 THE SLOVENIAN NATURA 2000 SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME 2007-2013........................................................................................92 1 ANNEX I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF GOOD CASES ON FINANCING NATURA 2000 .................................................................................106 ANNEX II: LONG LIST OF 27 POSSIBLE GOOD CASES ON FINANCING NATURA 2000 .........................................................................................................108 ANNEX III: THE FORMAT GUIDANCE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE AUTHORS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASES. .......................................................109 2 ACRONYMS EAFRD ............... European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EAGGF ............... European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund EFF...................... European Fisheries Funds ERDF .................. European Rural Development Fund EC ....................... European Commission EU ....................... European Union HNV.................... High Nature Value LIPU.................... Lega Italiana Protezioni Uccelli (BirdLife Italy) LPO..................... Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux RDP..................... Rural Development Plan SAC..................... Special Area of Conservation SCI ...................... Site of Community Interest SPA ..................... Special Protection Area SSSI..................... Site of Special Scientific Interest ZON .................... Slovenian Nature Conservation Act 3 I INTRODUCTION The EU has made significant commitments to save biodiversity. In 2001, the EU Heads of State or Governments agreed “to halt the decline of biodiversity [in Europe] by 2010” and in 2002, they joined some 130 world leaders in agreeing “to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss [globally] by 2010”. The Birds and Habitats Directives form the basis of biodiversity conservation in the EU and are widely regarded as the cornerstone of the EU’s biodiversity protection work. One of the main aims of these directives is to establish a coherent network of protected areas that are designed to safeguard the most unique habitats and species within the EU, i.e. the Natura 2000 network. As the establishment of Natura 2000 network is now nearing completion, an increasing amount of attention is being given to securing its appropriate maintenance and management. This includes guaranteeing sufficient funding for Natura 2000 site management, including through EU funding instruments. The closely interlocked cultural landscapes created The Redshank (Tringa tetanus) is one of the and maintained by farmers for centuries, together bird species that benefits of restoration and with the largely pristine natural landscape, are improved agri-environmental measures in Characteristic of the “Hohe Tauern” Natura 2000 the Danish river Varde valley. site. © Klaus Mortensen/Naturplan © Lerch, NPVSalzburg The EU LIFE Programme has traditionally been an important source of funding for Natura 2000, in particular financing best practice demonstration projects. Since 1992, LIFE has provided co-financing for some 2,750 projects, contributing approximately €1.35 billion to environmental protection including Natura 2000. However, despite of its merits it has been widely acknowledged that the LIFE budget is still rather limited and it cannot cover all Natura 2000 related financing needs. Therefore, in addition to the LIFE Programme, a number of other EU funds (such as the EU Structural Funds, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Fisheries Funds (EFF)) are also available to support the management of Natura 2000 Network (i.e. the so called “integrated model” for financing Natura 2000). These funds can significantly benefit Natura 2000, however, in the majority of cases obtaining financial support for Natura sites from these financing instruments requires that their management objectives can be linked with the wider regional and/or rural development objectives in the area. Therefore, it is generally considered that increased information is required about the 4 potential and effectiveness of different EU funding streams for supporting Natura 2000, in order to enhance the overall financing of the network. For that reason an EC Funding Handbook and IT Tool for Natura 2000 have been developed to help Natura 2000 practitioners to explore different EU co-financing opportunities and to prepare their project proposals. Both the Handbook and the IT Tool provide general information on which budget lines can be used to finance Natura 2000 and, more specifically, which EU funds can be targeted for specific management activities Both tools are published online: Financing Natura 2000 Handbook: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm Financing Natura 2000 IT Tool: http://www.financing- natura2000.moccu.com/pub/index.html). To follow up on these efforts, good case study examples on financing Natura 2000 from the different Community funds are needed to demonstrate the use of the EU fund in practice. Pupils participating in an excursion near Slovenian beech forest. Sustainably managed Adamov, along the Slovakian side of the forests cover 70 % of Slovenian Natura 2000 Morava river. © Marek Brinzík network. © Andrej Bibic Volunteers of BirdLife France helping a The Hoopoe (Upupa epops) is one of the farmer to plant 400 metres of hedge, using species that benefits from increased variation in local species, in the Midi-Pyrénées. © the landscape like the restoration of hedgerows. Magali Trille / LPO Aveyron © Thierry Vergely 5 II AIMS & CONTENT OF THIS REPORT The aim of this report is to present a selection of existing case study examples on financing Natura 2000 by using a variety of different EU funds, i.e. illustrating the application of the integrated EU financing model for Natura 2000 in practise. It is hoped that this collection of case studies would motivate and encourage people to make the best possible use of the variety of financing possibilities for Natura 2000 available under different EU funds. The selected ten (10) examples have been identified from a larger set of potential cases collected in cooperation with WWF & partners, the European Commission and the Member States. The documented case studies range from smaller scale initiatives that focus on specific management and outreach activities to larger projects supporting various management activities at a site. All of these documented case studies, regardless of their size and specific focus, have played an important role in contributing to reaching the conservation objectives of a given site. In addition, an example of an overarching national approach aiming to systematically