Implementation of the Habitats Directive Has Glossary Faced Obstacles

Library Briefing Library of the European Parliament 05/11/2012

The Habitats Directive and biodiversity in the EU

SUMMARY Twenty years after adopting In this briefing: the Habitats Directive, the EU has the largest  EU biodiversity legislation coordinated network (Natura 2000) of protected areas in the world. However, only  Implementation in Member States 17% of the species and habitats protected  Effectiveness of the Directive actually enjoy the favourable conservation status required by the Directive.  A new biodiversity strategy The Habitats Directive and the older Birds  Stakeholders' views Directive aim to safeguard species of plants  Main references and animals and their natural habitats, but implementation of the Habitats Directive has Glossary faced obstacles. The designation of protected Biodiversity: Variety among living organisms areas by Member States has been delayed, (within and between species) and the prompting the Commission to initiate ecosystems of which they are part. infringement proceedings. Moreover, the management of many protected sites is still Habitat: The natural home or environment of a inadequate. plant or animal. The Court of Justice of the EU has been required to play a role in clarifying the EU biodiversity legislation interpretation of the Directives. Birds and Habitats Directives In order to improve the protection of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (Birds biodiversity, the European Commission has Directive, revised 2009) and Council adopted a wider biodiversity strategy which Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) aims to strengthen the Habitats Directive by establish a legal framework for the improving monitoring and reporting, sharing conservation of natural habitats and wild of knowledge, and raising awareness. Funding plants and animals in the EU. The objective through the LIFE programme and other funds of the Habitats Directive is to achieve is to be increased, and biodiversity objectives ‘favourable conservation status’1 for the 230 are to be integrated in other EU policies. The EP habitat types and over 1 000 species supports the strategy, calling for improved deemed to be of Community interest. implementation and increased funding. Member States must draw up lists of national conservation sites, from which the Commission selects sites of Community importance (SCI). Within six years after selection, Member States must designate the sites as special areas of conservation (SAC) and establish conservation measures (which may include management plans). The Directive establishes the Natura 2000 Image Copyright Pecold, 2012. network, made up of these sites. Used under licence from Shutterstock.com Member State authorities must carry out an

Aubrac Plateau, a French Natura 2000 site. appropriate impact assessment for any plan or project (such as the construction of a

Author: Gregor Erbach 120372REV1 Contact: [email protected] Page 1 of 6

Library Briefing The Habitats Directive and biodiversity in the EU motorway) likely to have an impact on a Implementation in Member States designated site. In general, a project can only be approved if it has no negative Natura 2000 impacts on the integrity of the site. Natura 2000 is an EU-wide network However, a project can be approved in spite comprising the "special areas of of a negative impact assessment if conservation" designated by Member States  there is an overriding public interest, and under the Habitats Directive, and the  alternative solutions do not exist, and "special protection areas" under the Birds  compensatory measures are taken. Directive. These areas are not strict nature reserves, and often include land which is Member States must take measures to inhabited, privately owned and used for ensure the strict protection of all plant and recreational or economic purposes. animal species listed in the annexes to the Directive. They must monitor the In June 2012, the Natura 2000 network conservation status of habitats and species comprised 26 406 sites, covering almost one and report to the Commission every six million square kilometres, or around 18 % of years. the EU land area.

Additional relevant legislation Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) aims at a coherent and integrated approach to water management across the EU. It limits levels of particular chemicals in the aquatic environment. Directive 2009/128/EC restricts the use of pesticides in nature conservation areas. Directive 85/337/EEC requires an environmental impact assessment for a wide range of public and private projects, and Directive 2001/42/EC requires a strategic environmental assessment at an early stage for major plans and projects. Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability requires measures to prevent damage to protected species or habitats, Figure 1: Natura 2000 network (2007, source: EEA) and restoration measures in cases where According to the EEB report on Natura 2000 such damage has occurred. management, the majority of sites lack a International commitments management plan, which creates confusion The EU has international commitments for the owners or users of land. Only Sweden under the Convention on Biological has management plans for over 95% of its Diversity (CBD), including a set of global sites. EEB estimates that full management targets for 2020 (Aichi targets). In October could be achieved by 2016 if all Member 2012, the parties to the CBD decided to States followed the example of the best double the financing for the preservation of performing countries. biodiversity in developing countries and to Implementation process substantially increase domestic funding for There have been delays in the implemen- biodiversity protection.2 tation of the Directive. Five Member States

Author: Gregor Erbach 120372REV1 Contact: [email protected] Page 2 of 6

Library Briefing The Habitats Directive and biodiversity in the EU

transposed the Directive into national law To clarify the requirements, the Commission with a delay of more than three years. The has issued guidance documents for submission of national lists of SACs was also developments in Natura 2000 sites delayed. Figure 2 shows the development regarding wind energy, mineral extraction, over time of the Natura 2000 network. ports and estuaries and inland waterways. The Commission opened infringement cases Case law against Member States that did not meet The Court of Justice of the EU has played a their obligations and threatened to with- role in clarifying the interpretation of the hold funding from the structural and rural Habitats Directive. For example, the Court development funds. In 2009, there were 92 has ruled that open environmental infringement cases  the choice of sites must be based only on related to nature conservation and 50 cases the scientific criteria laid down in the related to impact assessments. Infringement Directive (C-67/99, C-71/99, C-220/99) cases concern, among others, the following  Member States must ensure an effective issues:3 system for strict protection of species  failure to transpose the Directive (C-103/00)  incorrect transposition of the Directive  all alternatives to a project must be  failure to designate special conservation examined (C-239/04) areas  an impact assessment must be carried  inadequate impact assessments out if risks cannot be excluded, according  inadequate protection of sites to the precautionary principle  insufficient monitoring and surveillance (C-127/02)  inadequate protection of species Overriding public interest  approval of projects without appropriate When there is overriding public interest, a impact assessment project may be carried out in spite of a negative impact assessment.

Figure 2: Cumulative geographical area of Natura 2000 network (source: EEA)

Author: Gregor Erbach 120372REV1 Contact: [email protected] Page 3 of 6

Library Briefing The Habitats Directive and biodiversity in the EU

Projects carried out despite a The LIFE programme, Aubrac Plateau negative impact assessment launched in 1992, and its include the extension of a The Aubrac plateau (shown successor LIFE+ have co- German coal mine, the on page 1) in the French financed thousands of con- enlargement of the port of Massif Central is a Natura servation projects and played 2000 site in which nature Rotterdam, and the construction a key role in supporting site and human activities have of the Botnaibanan railway in co-existed for thousands of management, building capaci- Sweden. Regional development, years. Current activities ties, and Species Action Plans. employment and competiveness include cattle breeding, For the period from 2014 to were cited as overriding public cheese production, agri- 2020, the Commission has interest in these cases. culture, knife manufac- proposed a new LIFE pro- turing, hunting and rural gramme which foresees €2.7 An analysis of 11 such cases tourism. Designated an SAC billion for the environment, finds that Member States often in 2006, the Aubrac site (725 did not properly consider half of which for nature and ha) contains peat bog biodiversity conservation. alternative locations for a project habitats and is home to and that the proposed com- over 2 000 plant species Apart from LIFE, funding pensation measures often were and numerous animals. A related to Natura 2000 is not concrete. It claims that the committee of local stake- available under the CAP, the Commission did not apply holders and national and Structural Funds, and to a sufficiently strict criteria in local authorities is currently limited extent through the issuing positive opinions on drawing up a management European Fisheries Fund and these projects, and argues for plan for the site. the Seventh Research more transparent decision- Framework Programme. making in order to achieve a better balance However, the uptake of these funds by between the protection of nature and Member States is insufficient and covers economic or political considerations. only about 20% of Natura 2000 financing needs. A recent assessment of Natura 2000 Funding co-financing concludes that eligibility gaps Based on data from Member States, the and constraints hinder the uptake of EU Commission has estimated that at least €5.8 funds by Member States, and that more billion per year is needed to manage the transparency and capacity-building are network and restore sites. The economic needed to increase the uptake of the value of the Natura 2000 network is available funds. estimated at between €200 and 300 billion.

Favourable 17% Unknown Favourable Unknown 18% 17% 31%

Unfavourable - Unfavourable - Inadequate Unfavourable - Inadequate 30% Bad 28% Unfavourable - 37% Bad 22% Figure 3: Conservation status of habitats (2006, source: EEA) Figure 4: Conservation status of species (2006, source: EEA)

Author: Gregor Erbach 120372REV1 Contact: [email protected] Page 4 of 6

Library Briefing The Habitats Directive and biodiversity in the EU

The Commission plans to keep target of stopping the loss of Ecosystem services utilising different funds for biodiversity by 2010. It financing of the Natura 2000 Nature provides valuable recommends enhanced network, and expects Member services to human society, implementation, integration of States to identify needs and among them food, wood, biodiversity protection in other fibre, clean water, priorities and set up strategic sectors such as agriculture, a pollination of crops, climate multi-annual plans. A small control, carbon storage, and more integrated approach at contribution is expected from recreation. Ecosystem landscape scales, raising of new and market-based services have traditionally public awareness, and the financing instruments. been regarded as ‘public closure of gaps in knowledge about EU biodiversity. European Parliament goods’ without a monetary value, which are dependent The European Parliament on public funding. A new biodiversity strategy resolution of 21 September 2010 on the implementation of The TEEB project on the In 2011, the Commission economics of ecosystems EU biodiversity legislation calls proposed a new biodiversity and biodiversity has for full implementation of strategy, following up on two developed methodologies Natura 2000, better protection for the valuation of commitments adopted by the of marine species and habitats, ecosystem services. For Environment Council and strengthening of impact assess- example, insect pollination endorsed by the European ments, and regrets the under- in the EU has an estimated Council in March 2010: utilisation of available funds by value of €15 billion per year.  to stop and reverse the loss Member States. Estimates of the value of local ecosystems can help of EU biodiversity and The implementation of the to justify and prioritise ecosystem services by 2020, Habitats directive has been the individual conservation and while increasing EU subject of numerous petitions restoration projects. contributions to preserving and parliamentary questions. global biodiversity.  to protect, value and restore EU Effectiveness of the Directive biodiversity and ecosystem services by The main achievements of the Habitats 2050. Directive are a large network of protected The new biodiversity strategy targets a sites, increased funding for nature 100% increase in improved conservation conservation, the systematic collection of status for habitats, and a 50% increase for data, improved conservation status of some species by 2020. It aims to maintain and species and habitats and increased enhance ecosystems through ‘green knowledge of EU biodiversity. infrastructure’ and restore at least 15% of However, the Commission's report on the degraded ecosystems by 2020. Biodiversity conservation status of habitats and species measures are to be included in agriculture, for the period 2001-2006 shows that only fishery and forestry. Actions are proposed to 17% of habitats and species had favourable ensure good management and adequate conservation status, with grassland, wetland financing of Natura 2000 sites, to increase and coastal habitat types being under the stakeholder awareness and involvement, most pressure. There are gaps in the data and to improve enforcement. Further since some Member States have insufficient elements of the strategy concern invasive monitoring programmes. alien species and global action. The European Environment Agency report The European Parliament resolution of 20 Assessing biodiversity in Europe (2010) April 2012 supports the Commission's pro- concludes that the EU did not achieve its posals and urges improved implementation

Author: Gregor Erbach 120372REV1 Contact: [email protected] Page 5 of 6

Library Briefing The Habitats Directive and biodiversity in the EU and stronger enforcement. It calls for a substantial increase in funding (at least €1 substantial increase of funds for the LIFE billion annually for biodiversity), higher co- programme and for EU and Member State financing rates, a strategic focus on Natura funding of at least €5.8 billion per year for 2000, and its extension to EU overseas Natura 2000. It supports the integration of countries and territories. biodiversity policies with the agriculture and fisheries policies. Main references Stakeholders' views National implementation of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21/05/92, DG IPOL, Policy BirdLife considers the establishment of the Department C, PE 410.698, April 2009 Natura 2000 network a major achievement, Proceedings: Workshop on EU biodiversity and points out that sites need conservation legislation: How to make it work, DG IPOL, Policy objectives, active management, monitoring, Department A, PE 440.277, July 2010 and funding. This should be combined with Nature and biodiversity cases: ruling of the a wider strategy for ecosystem conservation European Court of Justice, European and restoration. Commission, 2006 European Habitats Forum, a grouping of UE et Biodiversité - 2010, une année charnière?, nature conservation organisations, calls for Agnes Boucheron, EP Library Briefing 093/2010 increased efforts and funding for improved Nature & biodiversity paper publications, implementation of the Birds and Habitats European Commission website Directives, and for fundamental reforms in the areas of agriculture, fisheries and Disclaimer and Copyright cohesion. This briefing is a summary of published information and EEB, an environmental group, considers the does not necessarily represent the views of the author or the European Parliament. The document is exclusively new biodiversity strategy to lack ambition, addressed to the Members and staff of the European and proposes increased funding and Parliament for their parliamentary work. Links to strengthened protection measures for information sources within this document may be inaccessible from locations outside the European Natura 2000 habitats, as well as supporting Parliament network. © European Union, 2012. All rights measures in the agriculture, fisheries and reserved. cohesion policies. http://www.library.ep.ec Environmental NGOs have published a http://libraryeuroparl.wordpress.com position on LIFE 2014-2020 which calls for a

Endnotes

1 As defined in article 1 of the Habitats Directive, the conservation status of a species is ‘favourable’ when it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis, its natural range not being reduced, and there is a sufficiently large habitat to maintain it on a long-term basis. A habitat enjoys favourable conservation status if its range or area is stable or increasing, its long-term maintenance is supported, and its typical species enjoy favourable conservation status. 2 In addition, the EU and Member States are bound by a number of international conventions related to conservation and biodiversity: Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention, 1979), Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention, 1979), Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention, 1976), Alpine Convention (Salzburg Convention, 1991), Carpathian Convention (2003), Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1975). The Habitats Directive transposes the Bern Convention to EU legislation. 3 Examples of cases: failure to transpose the Directive: C-329/96, C-83/97; incorrect transposition of the Directive: C-256/98, IP/10/1584; failure to designate special conservation areas: C-67/99, C-71/99, C-220/99; inadequate impact assessments: IP/09/1651; inadequate protection of sites: IP/09/1793; insufficient monitoring and surveillance: IP/05/1641; inadequate protection of species: IP/11/95; approvals of projects without appropriate impact assessment: IP/09/1484.

Author: Gregor Erbach 120372REV1 Contact: [email protected] Page 6 of 6