DOCSLIB.ORG

Natura 2000 and Forests – Assessing the State of Implementation and Effectiveness

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

What Science Can Tell Us Tell What Science Can What Science Can Tell Us | No 7 | We live in an intricate and changing environment with – Assessing the State of Implementation and Effectiveness Natura 2000 and Forests interrelated feedback between ecosystems, society, economy and the environment. EFI’s ‘What Science Can Tell Us’ series is based on collective scientific ex- pert reviews providing interdisciplinary background information on key and complex forest-related issues for policy and decision makers, citizens and society in general. Natura 2000 and Forests What Science – Assessing the State of Implementation Can Tell Us and Effectiveness Metodi Sotirov (editor) The European Forest Institute (EFI) is an international organisation established by European States. EFI conducts research and provides policy advice on forest related issues. It facilitates and stimulates forest related networking as well as promotes the supply of unbiased and policy relevant information on forests and What Science Can Tell Us 7 Yliopistokatu 6, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland forestry. It also advocates for forest research and for scientifically sound infor- 2017 Tel. +358 10 773 4300 mation as a basis for policy-making on forests. www.efi.int What Science Can Tell Us Lauri Hetemäki, Editor-In-Chief Georg Winkel, Associate Editor Pekka Leskinen, Associate Editor Rach Colling, Managing Editor The editorial office can be contacted at [email protected] Layout: Grano Oy / Jouni Halonen Printing: Grano Oy Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the European Forest Institute. ISBN 978-952-5980-37-0(printed) ISBN 978-952-5980-38-7 (pdf) Natura 2000 and Forests – Assessing the State of Implementation and Effectiveness What Science Can Tell Us Metodi Sotirov (editor) Contents Authors ............................................................................................................................... 7 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................9 Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................11 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................15 Metodi Sotirov and Gerhard Weiss 2. The state of biodiversity in Europe’s forest systems .................................................17 Lead authors: Marco Marchetti, Annemarie Bastrup-Birk, Jari Parviainen Contributing authors: Giovanni Santopuoli, Matteo Vizzarri, Alistair Jump, Metodi Sotirov 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................17 2.2 Forest biodiversity monitoring under the FOREST EUROPE process ........ 19 2.3 Forest biodiversity monitoring according to the Natura 2000 process ....... 25 2.4 Comparative assessment and overall conclusions .........................................31 3. Implementation of Natura 2000 in forests ..............................................................39 Lead authors: Gerhard Weiss and Metodi Sotirov Contributing author: Zuzana Sarvašová 3.1 Natura 2000 policy formulation and implementation at the EU level ...... 40 3.2 Natura 2000 policy implementation in forests at the national level ...........42 3.3 Issues and challenges for implementing Natura 2000 in forests .............. 49 3.4 Summarising conclusions .............................................................................. 58 4. Best practice in Natura 2000 implementation in forests .........................................65 Lead author: Metodi Sotirov Contributing authors: Mareike Blum, Andreas Schabel, Carol Grossmann, Sebastian Schmack 4.1 Best practice examples of Natura 2000 implementation in forests in EU-28 ...............................................................................................................65 4.2 Case study: Natura 2000 implementation in forests in Baden-Württemberg, Germany ......................................................................72 Authors: Andreas Schabel, Sebastian Schmack, Carol Grossmann 4.3 Summarising conclusions .............................................................................. 77 5 WHAT SCIENCE CAN TELL US 5. Effectiveness of Natura 2000 in forests in EU-28 ..................................................... 81 Lead authors: Sarah Greenwood and Alistair Jump Contributing authors: Metodi Sotirov, Marco Marchetti, Grzgerorz Mikusi´nski, Annemarie Bastrup-Birk, Lluís Brotons, Virgilio Hermoso, Jari Parviainen 5.1 Effects of Natura 2000 policy on forest biodiversity and ecosystem services ............................................................................................................. 81 5.2 Effects of Natura 2000 policy on sustainable development and forest management .................................................................................................... 91 5.3 Summarising conclusions .............................................................................95 6. Economic effects and funding of Natura 2000 in forests .......................................101 6.1 Costs and benefits of the implementation of Natura 2000 in forests ........101 Lead authors: Louise Ecochard, Emeline Hily, Serge Garcia 6.2 Funding of Natura 2000 in forests ...............................................................119 Lead Author: Gerhard Weiss Contributing authors: Zuzana Sarvašová, Virgilio Hermoso, Lluís Brotons, Metodi Sotirov 6.3 Summarising conclusions ............................................................................. 133 7. Policy Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................. 135 Lead authors: Metodi Sotirov and Gerhard Weiss Contributing authors: Marco Marchetti, Serge Garcia, Louise Ecochard, Emeline Hily, Sa- rah Greenwood, Alistair Jump 7.1 Forest biodiversity monitoring in Europe .................................................... 135 7.2 Implementation ..............................................................................................138 7.3 Ecological effectiveness .................................................................................140 7.4 Economic effectiveness ................................................................................. 142 6 Authors Annemarie Bastrup-Birk, European Environment Agency (EEA), Denmark Mareike Blum, University of Freiburg, Germany Lluís Brotons, InForest Joint Research Unit (CTFC-CREAF) and CSIC, Spain Louise Ecochard, Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), AgroParisTech, France Serge Garcia, Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), AgroParisTech, France Sarah Greenwood, University of Stirling, UK Carol Grossmann, Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württemberg Virgilio Hermoso, CTFC Forest Sciences Centre of Catalonia, Spain Emeline Hily, Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), AgroParisTech, France Alistair Jump, University of Stirling, UK Marco Marchetti, University of Molise, Italy Grzegorz Mikusi ´nski, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Sweden Jari Parviainen, Independent Expert for Sustainable Forest Management, Dr. For., Finland Giovanni Santopuoli, University of Molise, Italy Zuzana Sarvašová, National Forest Centre, Slovakia Andreas Schabel, Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württemberg, Germany Sebastian Schmack, Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württemberg, Germany Metodi Sotirov, University of Freiburg, Germany Matteo Vizzarri, University of Molise, Italy Gerhard Weiss, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Austria and Central-East and South-East European Regional Office of the European Forest Institute (EFICEEC-EFISEE) 7 Acknowledgements This work and publication has been financed by EFI’s Multi-Donor Trust Fund for poli- cy support, which is supported by the Governments of Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Spain and Sweden. The report is based to a large extent on a synthesis of published documents and peer-reviewed studies. The manuscript’s synthesis and implications drawn from these studies, however, received constructive comments and suggestions from the follow- ing external reviewers: Jørgen Bo Larsen, University of Copenhagen, and Peter Meyer, Northwest German Forest Research Institute. We wish to thank them for their valua- ble comments and insights. Dr Georg Winkel has acted as the What Science Can Tell Us –series editor for this volume. 9 Executive Summary Background Natura 2000 is the core pillar in the European Union’s (EU) biodiversity conservation policy. It is an EU-wide ecological network of protected areas that cuts across countries’ borders, administrative levels, policy sectors and socio-economic contexts. The network is established and managed according to the legally-binding provisions of the 1979 EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC, revised in 2009) and the 1992 EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Natura 2000 aims to achieve biodiversity conservation and to combine it with the sustainable development of land and natural resources. It can allow for continuation of land uses (eg agriculture, forestry) as long as they do not significantly compromise con- servation objectives for habitats and species within and beyond the network. The Natura 2000
Recommended publications
  • Nature-Scorecard-Netherlands.Pdf

    Nature-Scorecard-Netherlands.Pdf

    NATURE SCORE CARD The Netherlands Netherlands has been a member of the European Union since its founding. Its Natura 2000 network consists of 195 sites, covering 20603km2, all of which are terrestrial (13.29% of the land area) while marine NATURA 2000 sites are covering 15083km2. The below analysis and recommendations suggest that national authorities still need to make further efforts in order to fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives and effective conservation of threatened species and habitats to be achieved on the ground. Transposition Site designation Management of sites (terrestrial) Avoid deterioration of sites, disturbance of species and implementation of appropriate assessments (terrestrial) Landscape connectivity Funding and resources Habitats and species monitoring Promotion of research Non-native species Stakeholder engagement, public participation and communication Species protection Management of sites (marine) Avoid deterioration of sites, disturbance of species and implementation of appropriate assessments (marine) ACTION PLAN FOR NATURE IN THE NETHERLANDS Transposition and designation Prevention of negative impacts Complete the process of the designation of Natura 2000 Determine and execute management plans for all sites sites, including the identification and designation of As soon as possible. marine SPAs (Brown Bank and other qualifying sites). Take action on species protection Climate change adaptation and nature have a natural synergy. Evaluate the nitrogen and nitrates policy on the Natura2000 targets taking into account the accumulating long term effects in the soil. Active management to achieve favourable conservation Funding status Finance true management costs Put results in management plans with automatic back- up actions Monitoring and research Stakeholder engagement Take action on surveillance, control and enforcement.
  • Natura 2000 & Tourism

    Natura 2000 & Tourism

    Natura 2000 & tourism Partnerships for Biodiversity European policies and the role of protected areas 2019 Seminar-dialogue 29 October 2019 Presentation by Sofia Pachini, unit ENV.D3 [email protected] • Latest report on natural & cultural heritage in Natura 2000 • Scoping study on tourism and recreational activities in Natura 2000 • Next steps Natural and Cultural Heritage in Europe: Working together within Natura 2000 Photo Naturepl.com https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/manage ment/pdf/Natural_and_Cultural_Heritage_report_2019_WEB.pdf 1.2 Linking natural and cultural heritage The term ‘heritage’ tends to evoke first and foremost the traditional concept of built cultural heritage: impressive monuments and stunning works of art (paintings, literature, music etc..) or archaeological sites, museums, forts and palaces, even modern industrial sites. But this is, in fact, just the tip of the iceberg. Europe is also endowed with a myriad other less tangible forms of cultural heritage, such as local arts and crafts, products (cheese, sausages and other local produce), knowledge, skills, spiritual beliefs and folklore that are deeply rooted in our sense of identity and that have been passed down for generations. This immensely diverse cultural heritage is interwoven with our rich and equally diverse natural heritage. Traditionally, natural and cultural heritage have been seen as completely distinct from one another, and sometimes even as antagonists. Some have expressed the view that ‘Nature ends where culture begins’. Indeed, the transition from nature to culture is not always easy to define: nature could mean all that exists naturally whereas culture only includes items that have been created by man.
  • Conservation Covenants

    Conservation Covenants

    Law Commission Consultation Paper No 211 CONSERVATION COVENANTS A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod QC and Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation: This Consultation Paper examines the case for introducing “conservation covenants” into the law of England and Wales, and considers how a scheme of conservation covenants might be framed. A conservation covenant is a private agreement made by a landowner, for the purposes of conservation. We discuss the current law and set out a number of provisional proposals and options for reform on which we invite consultees’ views. Geographical scope: The Consultation Paper applies to the law of England and Wales. Impact assessment: In Chapter 9 of this Consultation Paper, consultees are asked also to comment on the likely costs and benefits of any changes provisionally proposed. Consultees’ responses will inform our final recommendations and a formal impact assessment document that will be published with our Report. Availability of materials: This Consultation is available on our website at: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/consultations/conservation-covenants.htm. Duration of the consultation: We invite responses from 28 March 2013 to 21 June 2013. Comments may be sent: By email to: [email protected] or By post to: Luke Campbell, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020 3334 0200 / Fax: 020 3334 0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, whenever possible, you could send them to us electronically as well (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format).
  • Land Use Element of the General Plan

    Land Use Element of the General Plan

    General Plan Land Use Element Adopted December 15, 1993 Amended November 9, 2011 Amended July 22, 2015 Amended July 26, 2016 Amended April 26, 2017 Amended September 26, 2017 Amended December 13, 2017 Amended December 17, 2019 Amended October 6, 2020 County of Sacramento Office of Planning and Environmental Review . This page is blank County of Sacramento General Plan Land Use Element Amended October 6, 2020 Table of Contents SECTION I ..................................................................................................................................... 1 ELEMENT INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 Required Contents of the Land Use Element .............................................................................. 1 Concepts of the Land Use Element ............................................................................................. 1 Relationship to Other Elements .................................................................................................. 2 Relationship to Other County Planning Tools ............................................................................ 3 Relationship to Regional Planning Efforts ................................................................................. 6 THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM ......................................................................... 7 How to Use the Land Use Diagram ..........................................................................................
  • Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Report 2020

    Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Report 2020

    London Borough of Enfield Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation An Addendumx to the Enfield Blue and Green Strategy Final report London Borough of Enfield Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation An Addendum to the Enfield Blue and Green Strategy Version Status Prepared Checked Approved Date 1. Draft report for client comment R. Turner S. Swindlehurst S. Swindlehurst 06.11.2020 A. Coleman R. Glackin 2. Final Report R. Turner R. Turner R. Turner 17.11.2020 3. Final Report – re-issued to take R. Turner R. Turner R. Turner 01.04.2021 into consideration comments from stakeholders Bristol Land Use Consultants Ltd Landscape Design Edinburgh Registered in England Strategic Planning & Assessment Glasgow Registered number 2549296 Development Planning London Registered office: Urban Design & Masterplanning Manchester 250 Waterloo Road Environmental Impact Assessment London SE1 8RD Landscape Planning & Assessment landuse.co.uk Landscape Management 100% recycled paper Ecology Historic Environment GIS & Visualisation Contents Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation November 2020 Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Background 1 Chapter 2 Methods 3 Site Selection 3 Desk Review 3 Site Survey 3 Site Evaluation 4 Limitations 6 Chapter 3 Summary of the SINC Assessment 7 Summary 7 Recommendations 7 Summary of SINC Review 8 Appendix A Figure 1.1-1.3: Biodiversity Assets in the Borough and Figure 1.2 Areas of Deficiency in Access to Nature A-1 Appendix B Figure 3.1: Summary of SINC Review Recommendations B-1 Appendix C Summary of SINC Review C-1 Appendix D Proformas D-1 LUC I i Chapter- 1 Introduction Review of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation November 2020 Chapter 1 Introduction LUC was appointed in June 2020 by Enfield London Borough Council to undertake a review of existing Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within the borough.
  • The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve

    The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve

    Scotland’s National Nature Reserves For more information about Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve please contact: Scottish Natural Heritage, Creag Meagaidh NNR, Aberarder, Kinlochlaggan, Newtonmore, Inverness-shire, PH20 1BX Telephone/Fax: 01528 544 265 Email: [email protected] The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve The Story of Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve Foreword Creag Meagaidh National Nature Reserve (NNR), named after the great whalebacked ridge which dominates the Reserve, is one of the most diverse and important upland sites in Scotland. Creag Meagaidh is a complex massif, with numerous mountain tops and an extensive high summit plateau edged by a dramatic series of ice-carved corries and gullies. The Reserve extends from the highest of the mountain tops to the shores of Loch Laggan. The plateau is carpeted in moss-heath and is an important breeding ground for dotterel. The corries support unusual artic- alpine plants and the lower slopes have scattered patches of ancient woodland dominated by birch. Located 45 kilometres (km) northeast of Fort William and covering nearly 4,000 hectares (ha), the Reserve is owned and managed by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Creag Meagaidh has been a NNR since 1986 and during the last twenty years SNH has worked to restore natural habitats, particularly woodland, on the Reserve. Like much of the Highlands, the vegetation has been heavily grazed for centuries, so it was decided to reduce the number of grazing animals by removing sheep and culling red deer. The aim was not to eliminate grazing animals altogether, but to keep numbers at a level that allowed the habitats, especially the woodland, to recover.
  • Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process

    Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process

    Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process By: Anna Bengtson Alyssa Cudmore Brian Fadie David Markowitz A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Natural Resources and Environment) at the University of Michigan August 2016 Faculty Advisor: Professor Steven Yaffee Client: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office Working at the Landscape Scale: Lessons from the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Planning Process Acknowledgements The authors of this report would like to express our gratitude for the mentorship and assistance of the following with this project: We would like to thank Dr. Steven Yaffee, Professor at the School of Natural Resources and Environment and Director of the Ecosystem Management Initiative at the University of Michigan. His insight and guidance were invaluable for the completion of this report. We would also like to thank Michael Sintetos, Renewable Energy Program Manager for the Bureau of Land Management in California. He was essential for setting up this project and introducing key players and sites to our team. In addition, we want to thank the Bureau of Land Management’s California state office for providing funding that allowed the team to visit the DRECP planning region and meet in-person with individuals. We are also grateful for the funding provided by the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment to assist with the creation and presentation of this material. Lastly, we would like to extend our gratitude to all those who allowed us to inquire about their experiences with the DRECP to allow for a more comprehensive report.
  • Performing Failure in Conservation Policy. the Implementation of European Union Directives in the Netherlands

    Performing Failure in Conservation Policy. the Implementation of European Union Directives in the Netherlands

    Performing failure in conservation policy. The implementation of European Union directives in the Netherlands. Raoul Beunen1, Kristof Van Assche and Martijn Duineveld This is a revised personal version of the article published in Land Use Policy: Beunen, R., K. Van Assche, M. Duineveld, 2013. Performing failure in conservation policy. The implementation of European Union directives in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 31 (1): 280-288: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.07.009 1Corresponding author. Dr. ir. Raoul Beunen is Assistant Professor at the Land Use Planning Group at Wageningen University. P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands, tel. +31 317 482 697 [email protected] Dr. ir. Kristof Van Assche, is Associate Professor at the Community Studies Department at Minnesota State Universities. Stewart Hall 337, 720 4th Avenue South, St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498, [email protected] Dr. ir. Martijn Duineveld is Assistant Professor at the Cultural Geography Group at Wageningen University. P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands [email protected] Abstract. In this article we present the results of a study towards the reality effects of discourses affecting the implementation of Natura 2000 in the Netherlands. The Dutch case shows how fast deinstitutionalization of conservation policies can take place. Traditions of conservation are disrupted as an unintended consequence of international policy. This study shows that conservationists and others involved in nature conservation should pay more attention to the ways in which conservation needs and practices are represented and institutionalized, how these representations become embedded in more general narratives and how the new institutions are bound to be gamed and re-narrated themselves.
  • Natura 2000: European Wildlife Sites

    Natura 2000: European Wildlife Sites

    Natura 2000: European wildlife sites This leaflet provides information on the law relating to European Union designations to protect wildlife and habitats in England, called Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation. It is for general guidance only. What are Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)? SPAs and SACs are designated under European laws to protect Europe's rich variety of wildlife and habitats. All European Union member states are required to designate SPAs and SACs and ensure they are properly looked after to protect their biodiversity. Together, SPAs and SACs make up a series of sites across Europe, referred to collectively as Natura 2000 sites. In the UK they are also known as European sites. SPAs are designated under the European Commission's 'Birds Directive' to protect wild birds and their habitats. SACs are designated under the 'Habitats Directive' to conserve habitats and species other than birds that are important in their own right. There are more than 320 Natura 2000 sites in England, nearly 900 in the UK and more than 25,000 throughout Europe. These sites vary in size from a few hectares to hundreds of square kilometres, and protect a huge range of species and habitats, covering moorlands, forests, grasslands, rivers and lakes, bogs, estuaries and other wetlands, and many coastal and marine habitats. Some sites include habitats such as disused quarries, canals and buildings which sustain important wildlife populations. How are SPAs and SACs identified? SPAs and SACs are selected using scientific information about the species and habitats that occur in England and their importance to European biodiversity conservation.
  • The European Natura 2000 Protected Area Approach: a Practitioner’S Perspective

    The European Natura 2000 Protected Area Approach: a Practitioner’S Perspective

    www.iucn.org/parks 79 THE EUROPEAN NATURA 2000 PROTECTED AREA APPROACH: A PRACTITIONER’S PERSPECTIVE Roger Crofts 1* * [email protected], www.rogercrofts.net 1 WCPA Emeritus, Edinburgh, Scotland ABSTRACT Natura 2000 is the first and only regional biodiversity protected area approach in the world. Over its 20 years of existence it has been a positive force for conservation, but it has certain limitations. This paper assesses some of its strengths and weaknesses from a practitioner’s perspective. Overall, the assessment is positive as without it biodiversity loss would probably have been greater, and with it there is a unique transnational approach. The positive aspects identified are the biogeographical framework, pan-European classification of species and habitats, and the political will to implement it. The negative aspects are that it is a static approach to species and habitat conservation, the Natura approach to biodiversity conservation is being undermined by perverse subsidies from other EU funding mechanisms, especially the Common Agricultural Policy, and the effects of development on the fragmentation of habitats are dominant. Also, in practice, there has been a failure to implement wider countryside and connectivity measures. Lessons relevant to other parts of the world are discussed. KEYWORDS: Natura 2000, practitioner’s perspective, perverse subsidies, connectivity, lessons learned INTRODUCTION 1979); it is now known in its amended form as Directive The European Union (EU) programme for the protection 2009/147/EEC. The Directive provides for the of birds, and of species and habitats has been protection, management and control of all species of implemented primarily through Natura 2000.
  • Mountain Areas Such As the Cairngorms, Taking Into Consideration the Case for Arrangements on National Park Lines in Scotland.”

    Mountain Areas Such As the Cairngorms, Taking Into Consideration the Case for Arrangements on National Park Lines in Scotland.”

    THE MOUNTAIN AREAS OF SCOTLAND -i CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT A report by the COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND THE MOUNTAIN AREAS OF SCOTLAND CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND Opposite: Glen Affric. 2 CONTENTS CHAIRMAN’S PREFACE 3 INTRODUCTION 4-5 THE VALUE OF OUR MOUNTAIN LAND 7-9 LAND USEAND CHANGE 10-16 WHAT IS GOING WRONG 18-24 PUTTING THINGS RIGHT 25-33 MAKING THINGS HAPPEN 34-37 THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS 38-40 Annex 1: The World Conservation Strategy and Sustainable Development 42 Annex 2: IUCN Categories for Conservation Management and the Concept of Zoning 43 - 44 Annex 3: Outline Powers and Administration of National Parks, Land Management Forums and Joint Committees ... 45 - 47 Annex 4: THE CAIRNGORMS 48 - 50 Annex 5: LOCH LOMOND AND THE TROSSACHS 51 - 53 Annex 6: BEN NEVIS / GLEN COE / BLACK MOUNT 54 -56 Annex 7: WESTER ROSS 57 -59 Annex 8: How the Review was Carried Out 60 Annex 9: Consultees and Contributors to the Review 61 - 62 Annex 10: Bibliography 63 - 64 3 CHAIRMAN’S PREFACE The beauty of Scotland’s countryside is one of our greatest assets. It is the Commission’s duty to promote its conservation, but this can only be achieved with the co-operation, commitment and effort of all those who use and manage the land for many different purposes. The Commission has been involved with few environmental and social issues which generated so much discussion as the question of secur ing the protection of Scotland’s mountain heritage for the benefit, use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
  • Natura 2000Isstillunderdevelopment, Covering Anever Richerrange of 1979 Birds Directive Andthe 1992Habitats Directive

    Natura 2000Isstillunderdevelopment, Covering Anever Richerrange of 1979 Birds Directive Andthe 1992Habitats Directive

    June 2009 Natura 2000 EN NATURE Natura 2000 is the EU-wide network of nature conservation areas set up to ensure the survival of Europe’s most valuable species and habitats. It is not restricted to nature reserves, but based on a much broader principle of conservation and sustainable use, where people and wildlife can live together in harmony. By the end of 2008, the network will comprise more than 25 000 sites, covering around 20 % of the total land area of the EU — around 800 000 km2 — plus 100 000 km2 of marine environment. Natura 2000 is at the heart of EU nature policy and is a remarkable demonstration of Europe’s commitment to act to preserve its rich native biodiversity for future generations. Europe’s wildlife and ecosystems are under threat. The EU has pledged to halt the decline in biodiversity by 2010, and is part of a global agreement to signifi cantly reduce biodiversity loss by that date. Natura 2000 is key to achieving this goal. The network is founded on two pioneering pieces of EU legislation: the 1979 Birds Directive and the 1992 Habitats Directive. Natura 2000 is still under development, covering an ever richer range of European fl ora and fauna. It already off ers protection to over 1 000 rare and threatened animal and plant species and 200 habitat types across the 27 Member States. © Frank Vassen © Frank Fact 1: It is in our interests to save Fact 2: Natura 2000 is a partnership biodiversity between people and wildlife Biodiversity in Europe is under threat: many of Europe’s indigenous Natura 2000 is at the core of EU biodiversity policy: a unique animal species are threatened.