Conflicting EU Funds

Conﬂicting EU Funds: Pitting Conservation Against Unsustainable Development – Iberian lynx, Coto Dońana National Park, Spain | © WWF-Canon – Iberian lynx, Coto / WWF Spain/Jesus COBO Lynx pardinus Lynx Structural Funds and instruments by sector of expenditure (2000–06)* 1

Conﬂicting EU Funds: Pitting Conservation Against Unsustainable Development 2

Conﬂicting EU-funds: Pitting conservation against unsustainable development Case studies prepared by:

© WWF Global Species Programme, Wien, Rita Alcazar, Liga para a Protecção 2006. All rights reserved. da Natureza (LPN), Lisbon. Francesca Antonelli, WWF Mediterranean ISBN: 3-901458-20-4 Programme Office, Rome. Nora Berrahmouni, WWF Mediterranean Compiled by Clare Miller, IEEP, Programme Office, Rome. London/Brussels with support of WWF network. Ulli Eichelmann, WWF-Austria, Vienna. Raúl Garcia, WWF-Spain, Madrid. Editor: Gerald Dick, WWF. Panagiota Maragou, WWF-Greece, Athens. Yorgos Mertzanis, Callisto Wildlife This publication is also available and Nature Conservation Society, Thessaloniki. as download from: Thomas Nielsen, WWF European Programme www.panda.org/epo Office, Brussels. www.panda.org/species Guido Schmidt, WWF-Spain, Madrid. Luis Suarez, WWF-Spain, Madrid. Suggested citation: Marta Majka Wisniewska, WWF-Poland, WWF. 2006. Conflicting EU Funds: Pitting Warsaw. Conservation against Unsustainable Development. WWF Global Species Editorial Board: Programme, Wien. 72 pp. Andreas Baumüller, WWF EPO Stefanie Lang, WWF EPO Any reproduction in full or in part of this publica- Martina Fleckenstein, WWF D tion must mention the title and credit the above mentioned publisher and copyright owner. Editor in chief: Gerald Dick, WWF Global Species Programme

Graphics and Layout: Michal Stránský, Staré Město, Czech Republic.

Printed by Agentura NP, Staré Město, Czech Republic Printed on 100% recycled paper. 3

Foreword

When we talk about “European Nature” or Further support has been provided by An- “European Biodiversity”, many people associate dreas Beckmann, Joanna Benn, Wendy Elliott, this with the major legal instruments within the Marianne Kettunen, Eerik Leibak, Constantinos European Union: The Birds Directive and the Liarikos, Tony Long, Charlotte B. Mogensen, Habitats Directive, as well as the related network Thomas Nielsen, Eva Royo Gelabert, Stefanie of protected areas – Natura 2000 and The Wa- Fine Schmidt, Beate Striebel, Peter Torkler. ter Framework Directive concerning integrated and ecologically-driven river basin management. I wish to thank Christine Jalleh of the Millennium This approach is one of the most advanced in Ecosystem Assessment, Penang, Malaysia and the world, encompassing long term perspec- Reg Watson of the University of British Colum- tives and sustainability. However, to implement bia, Vancouver, Canada for providing me with a sophisticated system, one needs not only politi- high resolution graphs (p. 30 and cover III). cal will, but also financial backing. Furthermore, it seems evident it shouldn’t be threatened by I am also especially thankful to the support of competing plans funded by the very same institu- the editorial board, Andreas Baumüller, Martina tion – The European Union. Fleckenstein and Stefanie Lang as well as to the WWF network in providing and working on the In order to address this issue and to support the case studies. protection and improvement of the environment, (as recognised by the structural funds regulation I gratefully acknowledge this joint effort by the since 1999) as well as to help shape the new WWF network and its associated partners. round of EU funds for the 2007–2013 period, WWF has published this report. Gerald Dick, PhD, MAS Global Species Programme This report was written with the support of the In- Wien, December 2005 stitute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), and financially supported by the following WWF Global Programmes: Forests for Life, The Fresh- water Programme The Marine Programme, The Species Programme, as well as WWF Germany, the European Policy Office and the Oak Foun- dation. I wish to thank Geri Steindlegger, Derk Kuiper, Martina Fleckenstein, Sian Pullen, Carol Phua and Stefanie Lang. 4

Acronyms

CAP Common Agricultural Policy LIFE+ Financial Instrument CBD UN Convention on Biological Diversity for the Environment CFP Common Fisheries Policy NOP National Operational Program COP Conference of the Parties NSP National Strategic Plan DG Directorate General SAC Special Area of Conservation, EAFRD European Agriculture Fund designated under the Habitats for Rural Development Directive (92/43/EEC) EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance SCRS Standing Committee and Guarantee Fund on Research and Statistics of ICCAT EEA European Environment Agency SEA Strategic Environment Assessment EFF European Fisheries Fund SNHP Spanish National Hydrological Plan EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SPA Special Protected Area, designated EIB European Investment Bank under the Birds Directive EIF European Investment Fund (79/409/EEC) ERDF European Regional SSB Spawning Stock Biomass Development Fund TENS-T Trans-European Networks – Transport ESF European Social Fund VAT Value-Added Tax FIFG Financial Instrument WFD Water Framework Directive for Fisheries Guidance (2000/60/EC) FLR Forest Landscape Restoration approach GNP Gross National Product IBA Important Bird Area ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy LCIE Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe LFA Less Favoured Area 5

Table of contents 6

European Union at the Crossroads

Introduction to current challenges within the EU

The budgetary delay may slow down but will not One of the casualties of reduced agricultural stop the work on the development of the new spending is likely to be rural development. Under regulations and guidelines that will come into a compromise promoted by the Luxembourg force at the beginning of 2007 and will channel Government, the amount of money for rural the budgetary amounts that are finally agreed development was already foreseen to go down upon. In that sense, WWF’s current work on from almost 90 billion euro in the 2007–2013 influencing and shaping regulations for Life+ period to 73–75 billion euro. The newly adopted and Natura 2000, rural development, the struc- rural development regulation, and the draft rural tural funds, various water and mining directives, development strategic programming guidelines, fisheries regulations and so on will continue now include WWF priorities for implementation relatively unscathed. In fact, the feeling in Brus- of the Water Framework Directive, the imple- sels in the immediate aftermath of the 16/17th mentation of Natura 2000, the promotion of high June European Council is to some extent one of nature conservation value farming and forestry renewed vigour in working on these framework systems and renewables for energy production. regulations and policy guidance so that normal Any cutbacks in funding for this programme, and business can resume as soon as the budget is any delays in approving the guidelines, could settled. have negative consequences for WWF’s thematic and eco-region objectives in Europe. As far as agriculture is concerned, Tony Blair’s showdown with France and Germany in particu- The rural development fund and the structural lar was over the 2002 agreement to keep agri- funds could in the best of circumstances be- cultural spending guaranteed at a 40 billion euro come the main funding mechanisms for imple- per year level until 2013. This bilateral Franco- menting Natura 2000. The much smaller Life+ German agreement was announced with little programme and budget line will also make an pre-warning and was subsequently endorsed by important contribution, especially for funding Blair in 2003 – but it is clear that he now wants species, habitats and broader nature conserva- to retract. The modernisation of the EU agenda tion objectives that would fall outside these two in line with the Lisbon agenda – Europe as the large development programmes. Since the exist- most dynamic, knowledge based economy in the ing Life Nature budget line and regulation is due world – means that a diversion of agricultural to expire at the end of 2006, the Natura 2000 funds into research and development, techno- programme is especially vulnerable if a budget- logical innovation, competitiveness issues makes ary impasse continues too much longer. more sense in the UK view. It is the speed of the reform – rather than whether reform is necessary – which is the real root of the difference between the UK Government (and some important allies) and some other European countries. 7

Following the Common Fisheries Policy reform Regarding the external dimension of the new agreed at the end of 2002, the new propos- Financial Perspectives, there is a growing rec- als for the European Fisheries Fund include ognition that global and regional environmental objectives close to the interests of WWF. This problems will not be tackled alone through the includes making funds available for the sustaina- standard country and regional programming ble development of coastal areas, the adaptation approaches that underpin EU development of fishing fleets and fishing effort to the need for cooperation. A separately-funded Environment improved stock management and recovery plans and Energy Thematic Strategy is being drawn up and pilot projects for conservation. The Fisheries in the Commission that would allow the EU to Fund will offer inducements to Member States to anticipate and intervene in large-scale environ- turn existing voluntary measures for conservation mental crises. It would also give direction to all into programmatic ones supported by EU fund- EU policies as they affect the environment and ing. It is to be hoped that budgetary delays will natural resources in third countries, for instance, not disrupt this process longer than is necessary. agriculture, fisheries energy and so on. WWF It will also be necessary to watch member states is pressing for this thematic programme to be carefully so that they don’t use budget delays to adequately funded if the EU wants to give real revert to the previous damaging support for fleet global environmental leadership and not simply modernisation and renewal. rhetoric.

The work of the EPO water team is currently Tony Long, focussed on three directives – Mining Waste, Director, WWF European Policy Ofﬁce Flood Risk Management and a Priority Substanc- Brussels, December 2005 es Directive under the Water Framework Direc- tive. All the signs are that the legislative timeta- bles for these three initiatives are unlikely to be affected by either the constitutional setbacks or the budgetary delays. On the contrary, the Euro- pean water director’s meeting a few days after the June 2005 European Council gave a strong endorsement to the Water Framework Directive principles and made a complete about-turn in asking that the ﬂood directive now be made an integral part of water framework legislation. 8 Cultural landscape of White Carpathians – South Moravia, Czech Republic.| © Michal Stránský Republic.| Carpathians Czech – South Moravia, Cultural landscape of White 9

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The European Community has made legal and • Extension of transport networks that frag- political commitments to protect its biodiversity, ment habitats – for example, projects including the commitment by European leaders currently underway in several Member “to halt biodiversity loss by 2010”. Despite such States are of concern to NGOs due to poor commitments, activities financed by European consideration of environmental concerns. funds have continued to have a negative impact In Poland, the proposed route of the Via on nature and biodiversity in the EU, and may be Baltica could have negative impacts on compromising chances of meeting the 2010 ob- Natura 2000 sites (see case study 5); in jective. The case studies examined in this report Greece, the Egnatia Highway could affect provide examples of clashes between nature the viability of the Brown Bear population conservation and the use of European funds. (see case study 3); and proposals to clear “bottlenecks” on the Danube river could In particular, EU funds have been used for: affect significant Ramsar and Natura 2000 • Overexploitation of natural resources – for wetland sites (see case study 6). example, funds from the Financial Instru- ment for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) have There is another side of the story. In contrast been used to increase capacity in the Blue- to those applications of funds with negative fin Tuna fishery (see case study 4). impacts on biodiversity, other applications of • Support to intensive agriculture and for- European funds are being used to support estry – for example, funds from the Euro- implementation of Natura 2000, fund species pean Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee management actions, and create win-win situa- Fund (EAGGF) have been used in Spain tions where socio-economic and environmental in a way which has encouraged the growth objectives are realised together. However, it of intensive irrigation in some areas. Direct seems that Member State administrations often payments (EAGGF Guarantee section) that still lack awareness of the possibilities to fund favoured more productive, irrigated crops these activities with benefits for nature or are have led to a reduction in competitiveness of motivated to promote damaging alternatives due farmers in traditional dryland areas, and sub- to negative political, economic and social drivers. sequent abandonment of such areas with negative impacts for biodiversity (see case study 8). Development of dams to provide water for irrigation has also had impacts on rare species such as the Iberian Lynx (see case studies 2, 7). Poor direction of Rural Development Funds (EAGGF Guidance section) in some areas has also caused problems, for example in Portugal a lack of focus on landscape-scale management has led to the prevalence of damaging practices such as scrub clearance (see case study 1). 10

Key recommendations

If the EU is to realise its stated goal of halting bi- 1. The use of EU funds that conﬂict with odiversity loss by 2010, it is vital that all Europe- the Community goal to halt the loss of an funds are applied in a manner that supports biodiversity by 2010 must be eliminated this commitment and in full compliance with the (as species and habitats have been threat- requirements of the nature and water protection ened in the past). Directives. The Commission has shown that it 2. The integration of biodiversity and can take a strong position on withholding funds Natura 2000 as funding priorities into where Member States are found to be in breach the programmes of major EU funds must of their obligations to protect their nature and become obligatory. biodiversity. It is important that this approach to 3. The partnership principle must be sys- effective enforcement continues. tematically, correctly and fully applied in the programming implementation and Poor coordination between Member State evaluation processes for EU funds. This authorities or European agencies is not an means that environmental stakeholders adequate excuse for failure to protect Europe’s (public and non-governmental) should be nature. It is clear from the case studies in this treated as equal partners, have full voting report that all levels of governance (European, rights, receive information in a timely fash- national, regional, local), non-governmental ion, be consulted properly, have a right to organisations, and individual consumers have transparent feedback and be trained and a role to play in ensuring wise use of European resourced to play their role efﬁciently. funds, and in preserving European biodiversity for future generations.

It is critical that these lessons are applied in ﬁnal- ising the legislation and guidelines governing EU funds in the next ﬁnancing period from 2007– 2013, and that expenditure in Member States is monitored so that any impacts on biodiversity are apparent and minimised. Detailed recommendations are included after the individual chapters, whereas the principal ones are as follows:

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 11

Member States should The European Commission should • Include references to support nature and • Ensure that nature and biodiversity biodiversity (and halt biodiversity loss by requirements are addressed in all the pro- 2010) in their national programmes for gramming documents for the 2007–2013 use of European funds for 2007–2013. funding period. • Promote good coordination and coopera- • Undertake a mid-term review of the appli- tion between their own national, regional cation of the funds to ensure that they are and local authorities and agencies (eg being used in support of halting the loss between Ministries of Finance, Economic of biodiversity by 2010. Affairs and Environment). • Establish compulsory indicators for the • Develop a biodiversity strategy, analys- ex-ante, mid-term and ex-post evaluation ing key threats and potential benefits at of EU Funds. To date, indicators have national and regional levels. This strategy mainly concentrated on management and should make clear links to the manage- financial control. There should also be ment of Natura 2000 sites, implementa- indicators to assess the environmental tion of the Water Framework Directive consequences and the impacts on biodi- and to the effective use of European versity of measures funded by EU monies. funds. • Require DG Environment to establish • Shape their national programmes so an audit group comprising all relevant that they meet the financial requirements General Directorates in order to monitor for Natura 2000 implementation which (at least biannually) the implementation were laid down in the Communication of the programmes and to ascertain from the Commission to the Council and on whether money from EU funds has the European Parliament on financing been used to achieve the goal to halt the Natura 2000 (COM(2004) 431 final, an- loss of biodiversity by 2010. nexes). • Require DG Environment, in close co- • Inform and involve interest groups and operation with DG Fisheries & Maritime stakeholders especially NGO’s in devel- Affairs, to ensure the application of the oping plans for use of European funds. Strategic Environmental Assessment • Make sure that Environmental Impact Directive to the National Strategic Plans Assessments are developed and applied and National Operational Programmes correctly, timely and by independent developed by Member States. bodies especially for infrastructure investments. • Support projects for sustainable rural development eg by using LEADER funds. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 12

2. EUROPE’S NATURE & PROTECTION REGULATION

2.1 Europe’s natural heritage and Why does it matter? Community efforts to protect it In her speech to the Third Pan-European Conference Biodiversity in Europe held in 2.1.1 Madrid in January 2004, the then European What is Europe’s natural heritage? Commissioner for the Environment, Margot Wallström, stated that the loss of biodiversity The European Union’s 25 Member States stretch matters for Ethical, Emotional, Environmental from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean, and and Economic reasons. include a vast range of natural terrestrial and marine habitats and a great diversity of flora and fauna. There are several thousand types of habitat, 150 species of mammal, 520 bird species, 180 species of reptiles and amphibians, Compared to many areas of the world, especially 150 species of fish, 10,000 plant species and the tropics, biological diversity (biodiversity) in at least 100,000 species of invertebrate (CEC Europe is relatively low (EASAC 2005). However, undated). there are many unique and endemic species and ecosystems, such as the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardi- Human activity has influenced the state of Euro- nus); the Cyprus Whipsnake (Coluber cypriensis); pean biodiversity for centuries. In pre-agricultural Zino’s Petrel (Pterodroma madeira); and some times most of the lowlands of Europe were cov- 3,500 unique plant species (IUCN 2001). The ered in closed or semi-closed forest or appeared Mediterranean Basin (stretching into North as a park-like half-open forest (Vera 2000). In the Africa) in particular is one of WWF’s Global 200 north-west of Europe, in areas with the highest Ecoregions (a science-based global ranking economic development and human population of the Earth’s most biologically outstanding density, natural ecosystems now persist only as terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats small and marginal zones amidst the extensive ar- (WWF 2000) and is also recognised as a global eas dominated by agriculture and urban develop- biodiversity hotspot (Conservation Internation- ment (EASAC 2005). Those sites not influenced al 2005). by humans represent the last remaining “wilder- ness-areas” of Europe. However, human management is now essential for many of the sites that are valuable in terms of European biodiversity. 13

2.1.2 Depleting our Natural What measures are in place to protect Resources, many species Europe’s natural heritage? remain threatened (EEA 2005) The first piece of true nature protection legisla- 42% of native mammals tion in the EU was the Birds Directive (79/409/ 15% of birds EEC), passed in 19792. This Directive was devel- 45% of butterflies oped largely as a result of public concern about 30% of amphibians the killing of migratory birds in southern Europe. 45% of reptiles It protects all wild bird species, and requires the 52% of freshwater fish protection of sites that are important breeding and resting places for birds – these sites must be designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The Danube river basin also represents a significant focus for European biodiversity. It is home The Birds Directive was followed in 1992 by the to a diverse system of natural habitats including Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The Habitats Germany’s Black Forest, the Alps, the Carpathi- Directive takes a broader, more modern ap- an Mountains and the Hungarian puszta plains. proach to conservation, and aims to protect wild Romania, currently an EU accession country, species and their habitats. It contains provisions hosts the Danube Delta – a UNESCO World for the development of a network of protected Biosphere Reserve and the largest reed bed in areas (Natura 2000), which includes the SPAs the world. A unique mixture of canals, reed beds, designated under the Birds Directive, along with lakes and ponds, allows this Delta to shelter over Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designat- 280 bird species. 70% of the world’s popula- ed under the Habitats Directive. Establishment tion of White Pelicans (Pelacanus onocrotalus) of the Natura 2000 network is an ambitious task, and 50% of the world’s populations of Pygmy and the sites designated to-date already cover Cormorant (Phalacrocorax pygmeus) and Red- a total area larger than Germany. Site designa- breasted Goose (Branta ruficollis) can be found in tion has not been easy and has been met with the Delta1. resistance from landowners in many countries, especially farmers and foresters (eg Ireland, European people obtain many products and Finland). services from nature. For example, forests provide timber, water purification and flood control, farmlands provide food, and wetlands provide flood control, water purification and recreation. Almost half of the EU’s population lives less than 50 km from the sea (CEC 2005a) and many depend on coastal tourism, shipping and fisheries. Agriculture, including arable land is one of the 1 See www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/europe/what_we_ most important forms of land use in the Euro- do/danube_carpathian/blue_river_green_mtn/danube_river_basin/index.cfm for more information. pean Union, covering about 43% (137 million ha) of EU territory (Young et al 2005). 2 Together, the Birds and Habitats and Water Framework Directives are referred to as ‘the nature and water protection Directives’. 14

Why does it matter? The key objectives of the nature and water protection The Millennium ecosystem assessment cov- Directives ered many ecosystem services (services that ecosystems provide to people) including: • The Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) provision of food, fibre, fuel, genetic resourc- Seeks to control the hunting and killing of es, biochemicals, fresh water, education and wild birds and protect their eggs and nests. inspiration, aesthetic values; support to pri- It also requires the provision of a sufficient mary production, nutrient cycling, soil forma- diversity and area of habitats to maintain tion and retention, provision of atmospheric populations of all bird species. oxygen, water cycling; provision of other services such as seed dispersal, pollination, pest • The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and disease regulation, erosion regulation, Aims to contribute towards the maintenance natural hazard protection, climate regulation. of biodiversity within the European territory See www.millenniumassessment.org. of the Member States through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The Directive aims at establishing The aim of Natura 2000 is to promote the a “favourable conservation status” for habitat conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna types and species selected as being of Com- and flora while taking into account the economic, munity interest. social and cultural requirements and specific regional and local characteristics of the Member • The Water Framework Directive States. A “favourable conservation status” must (2000/60/EC) be met for all species and habitats included in Expands the scope of water protection to all the Directive’s annexes. The idea of the network waters and sets clear objectives that a “good is not to create “nature sanctuaries” where hu- status” must be achieved for all European man activity is prohibited, as in many areas the waters by 2015 and that water use be sus- presence or resumption of beneficial human tainable throughout Europe. activity is essential for maintaining biodiversity. New activities or developments are not neces- sarily prohibited within Natura 2000 sites; on the Despite significant delays, the terrestrial sites of contrary economic activities that are compatible the Natura 2000 network are now established in with conservation requirements are encour- all of the EU-15 Member States. The ten Mem- aged. However, these need to be judged on ber States that joined the EU in 2004 are in the a case-by-case basis. There is a clear procedure process of confirming their site lists through in the Habitats Directive for the assessment of biogeographical seminars and consultation development proposals that are likely to have an with the Commission. The aim is to complete impact on designated sites (Article 6, Habitats these seminars by the end of 20063. Marine Directive). sites are still underrepresented, and designation and management of these will still present a significant future challenge for Member States. In addition, the annexes to the Habitats Directive do not include many species of marine fish. Most marine fish species will therefore only benefit from Natura 2000 indirectly through habitat 3 For more information, see http://europa.eu.int/ protection, or where specific site management rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/ 294&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en guidelines prohibit or regulate fishing. 15

The Habitats Directive contains a provision Key dates and political for EU co-funding of Natura 2000 (Article 8). commitments: In 2004, the European Commission estimated the cost for the management of Natura 2000 2001: Gothenburg – European leaders sites at € 6.1 billion4 per year for the EU-25 commit to halting the loss of biodiversity by (CEC 2004a). NGOs have subsequently pub- 2010. Goal is included in EU Sustainable lished other figures, and consider the Com- Development Strategy mission’s estimate to be highly conservative. In 2002: CBD COP 6 – Parties to the CBD the future (starting in the 2007–2013 funding commit to achieve a significant reduction in period), the majority of the co-funding for Natura biodiversity loss by 2010 2000 is expected to come from a combination 2002: World Summit on Sustainable Devel- of national funding sources and the EU’s major opment endorsed the CBD goal funding instruments, notably the European 2003: Kiev – Fifth Environment for Europe Regional Development Fund, the European Ministerial Conference: Pan-European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European environment ministers (from 51 countries) Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the endorsed the goal of halting the loss of European Fisheries Fund. Funding will also be biodiversity by 2010 available through the Financial Instrument for the 2004: Malahide Conference – stakeholders Environment (LIFE+). release the Message from Malahide setting out objectives and targets to meet the The most recent piece of European legislation 2010 objective with significant relevance to nature conserva- 2006: European Commission expected tion is the Water Framework Directive (WFD, to release its Communication setting out 2000/60/EC). The WFD obliges Member States a Road Map to 2010 to take protective or restorative action in the 2007: Start of the new EU funding period management of rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuar- ies, coastal waters and of terrestrial ecosystems dependent on water that are part of the Natu- Aside from completion of the Natura 2000 ra 2000 network. However, the WFD obligation network, and implementation of the nature and of achieving “good ecological and chemical water protection Directives, European leaders status” affects all waters across the EU, regard- have made additional commitments to protect less of whether relevant water bodies (eg rivers, European biodiversity. The parties to the UN lakes) are protected or not. As with the Habitats Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) made Directive, there is a provision for exemptions, but a commitment at the sixth meeting of the Confer- only if a series of strict criteria are met. ence of the Parties (2002) “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth”. The European 4 ‘Billion’ is taken to mean 1,000,000,000 (ie one thousand million) Community has ratified the CBD, and all Mem- in this document. ber States are parties. In 2001, EU Heads of 5 ‘The European Council agrees that biodiversity decline should be State and Government made an even more ambi- halted with the aim of reaching this objective by 2010 as set out in tious commitment at the EU’s Spring Summit in the Sixth Environmental Action Programme.’ Presidency Conclu- sions, Goteborg Council, 15 and 16 June 2001. SN/200/1/01 Gothenburg to halt the decline of biodiversity REV1, page 8. http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/newmain.asp?lang=1 by 20105. This goal was included as part of the 6 See http://europa.eu.int/comm/sustainable/docs/Summit%20conclu EU’s Sustainable Development Strategy6. sions%20june%202005%20EN.doc 16

2.2 Nature under pressure

In May 2004, a stakeholder conference entitled Together with Asia, Europe is the most urbanised Biodiversity and the EU – Sustaining Life, Sustaining and densely populated continent in the world. Livelihoods was held under the Irish Presidency Nature must compete for space with a total pop- in Malahide, Ireland. The conference was organ- ulation of around 459.5 million people8, each ised to finalise a year-long consultative process with his/her own demands for resources. Natural to review the implementation, effectiveness and systems in Europe are now under threat due to appropriateness of the European Community many factors, including climate change, intensifi- Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans. The Con- cation of agriculture, tourism, dams, urbanisation, ference outcome was the Message from Malahide invasive alien species, habitat fragmentation, and which set out 18 key objectives and 97 targets eutrophication (EEA 2003, 2005). designed to meet the EU commitment to “halt the decline of biodiversity by 2010”7. Within the EU’s territory, some 42% of mammals are endangered, together with 15% of birds and In its conclusions on 28 June 2004, the Council 45% of butterflies and reptiles9. Ecosystems are of the European Union (meeting as the Environ- also at risk. Natural and semi-natural grasslands ment Council, 10997/04) adopted conclusions have been affected by intensive agriculture, hus- related to halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. bandry and urbanisation, and face further threats Amongst these was a conclusion that urged from land drainage, changes in forest cover, and the Commission to submit, as early as possible land abandonment. Mountainous areas are sub- in 2005, a Report to Council and Parliament ject to challenges from agricultural and pastoral on its assessment of the implementation, ef- practices, recreational uses and climate change fectiveness and appropriateness of each of the (EASAC 2005). objectives and targets set in the European Com- munity Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans The major driver of declining biodiversity at all taking into account the consultative process levels is habitat loss and fragmentation. Loss now concluded and, notably, the Message from and fragmentation of natural habitats can be at- Malahide. The Commission’s Communication is tributed to agriculture, forestry, urbanisation, con- now expected to be released in April 2006, and struction of infrastructure, and tourism (Delbaere will set out a Road Map to 2010, giving priority 1998). Certain habitat types are particularly vul- actions that will be necessary for EU institutions, nerable to loss: for example, the disappearance Member States and civil society if the goal of of wetlands over the last century in Europe has halting biodiversity loss is to be met. been dramatic, ranging from 60% in Denmark to 90% in Bulgaria (EEA 2003). Europe has lost up to 90% of its floodplains due to river alterations for agriculture, navigation, flood control and other purposes (Tockner & Standford, 2002).

7 Refer to http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/biodiversity/develop_biodiversity_policy/malahide_conference/pdf/confer- ence_report.pdf

8 Estimate at 1 January 2005 – see Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat. cec.eu.int/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136184,0_45572592&_ dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

9 Figures from http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/biodiversity/intro_en.htm 17

Some Trends in European biodiversity

Provisional analysis on trends over the period 1970–2000 for butterflies found in a range of ecosystems show that population size has decreased by 90% over 30 years for most wetland butterflies in mires, bogs and fens. There has also been a 50% reduction in population size of grassland butterflies over this period, also likely as a result of a reduction in the area of grassland and increased pressures from nitrogen deposition etc.

A comparison between IUCN global status in 2000 and the 2003 IUCN red list shows that: • 902 taxa retain the same status • 2 taxa have an improved status • 3 taxa have declined in status (eg Iberian Lynx) • 69 taxa found in Europe have been added to the IUCN 2003 red list, including 4 that are critically endangered.

Overall 60% of European fish catches exceed safe limits, ie levels above which the biomass removed by fishing is no longer replaced by population growth. Catches of open sea fish account for almost two thirds of all catches; and about half of these catches are outside safe limits. Industrial fishing catches account for another 20% of the total. Fish play an integral role within the wider marine environment, which is experiencing pressure from shipping, pollution, coastal eutrophication and climate change. The continuation of present trends of over-fishing will therefore probably lead to substantial changes across the entire marine ecosystem.

See Malahide conference background paper (by EEA) at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/biodiversity/develop_biodiversity_policy/malahide_conference/pdf/conference_report.pdf

Key Actions: Safeguarding priority sites and species

as deﬁned for the Challenge 1 in draft Communication from the EU Commisssion on Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and Beyond (15 Nov 2005). • Complete, designate, ﬁnance and ensure effective, management of the Natura 2000 network by 2010 (2012 for marine sites). • Strengthen coherence and connectivity of the network*. • Expand the network to candidate countries. • Expand the species action plan approach where appropriate. • Strengthen support for priority sites and species in those Outermost Regions which are not addressed by the nature directives**.

* Provided for in Habitats Art 10 and Birds Dir. – and for which broad acceptance at Nature Directors meeting Oct05 of necessity for further work on this.

** French Departements Outre-Mers (DOM) – ie. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Reunion, Martinique. 18

2.3 Conclusions and recommendations

Europe’s population continues to grow, and demands for new infrastructure and other developments continue to increase. If the remaining natural heritage of Europe is to be preserved, it is vital that mechanisms for planning new developments are able to accommodate nature protection. European policy will need to incorpo- rate provisions that: • Provide protection for the last remaining areas of Europe with the least human

inﬂuence © Michal Stránský • Support positive management of sites One of Europe‘s threatened species: • Prevent negative impacts on biodiversity Common Water-frog, Rana esculenta.

Recommendations

Member States should • Take action to ensure the nature and water protection Directives are being fully and effectively implemented including: × Providing sufﬁcient funds from Rural Development, Structural and Fisheries Funds and LIFE+. × Achieving and maintaining favourable conservation status for species and habitats of Community interest. × Ensuring reporting and monitoring frameworks are in place. × Protecting, preventing further deterioration and enhancing the status of aquatic ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on aquatic ecosystems. • Make progress in designating marine sites for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network as soon as possible.

The European Community should • Ensure that Member States are adequately supported (in terms of guidance and ﬁnance) to allow full implementation of the existing Directives. • Ensure that sufﬁcient resources are committed to measures aimed at achieving the 2010 goal of halting biodiversity loss. • Continue to effectively monitor and enforce European legislation and ensure that infringements are not ignored or accepted. • Raise awareness for nature protection in all areas. 19

3. EUROPEAN FUNDS

3.1 The main European funding lines and how they operate

The European Community has its own budget to Obtaining a clear understanding of the different finance its expenditure. The majority of the rev- EU funds and how they operate can be difficult, enue to fund the EU budget comes from Member as eligibility for funding requests is determined State contributions based on Gross National by many different criteria, and funding for Income. Additional amounts come from agri- a single project can come from several different cultural duties, customs duties, and VAT (Value- sources. The discussion below aims to set out Added Tax) based resources10. Figure 1 shows the key aspects of the major European funding the proportion of funds spent in different areas streams, but for more information, readers are for 2000–2006. Agriculture payments support- advised to refer to the specific websites of the ing the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) make EU institutions: www.europa.eu.int. up the largest part of the budget, and payments for structural operations are also very significant (see discussion below).

Figure 1: Proportions of EU fund allocations 2000–200611

10 For more information see http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/faq/ 11 Figure from: http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/library/documents/ index_en.htm#4 multiannual_framework/2000_2006/grphperﬁn20002006_en.pdf 20

3.1.1 Structural and Cohesion funds

Note that this chapter focuses on the operation Structural operations (funded through the of the EU funding instruments that are in place Structural and Cohesion Funds) are intended to for 2000–2006 as this is the period when the address variations in certain socio-economic fac- activities described in the case studies took tors between European regions (eg unemploy- place (see Chapter 5). During the 2007–2013 ment rates and gross domestic product). The funding period, the funds will be governed by dif- funds are targeted mainly at Objective 1 areas ferent regulations. The key differences between (less developed regions, Fig 2)12. The main Euro- the two sets of regulations are outlined below: pean Structural Funds for the 2000-2006 period • The Fisheries funding instrument will no are (details, see Fig, inside cover): longer be one of the Structural Funds, but • The European Regional Development Fund will be an independent funding instrument (ERDF), whose principal objective is to pro- under the responsibility of DG Fisheries mote economic and social cohesion within • The Cohesion Fund will change to a pro- the European Union through the reduction gramme approach, integrated with the ERDF of imbalances between regions or social programming groups. • The European Agriculture Fund for Rural • The European Social Fund (ESF), which is Development (EAFRD, formerly called the the main financial instrument allowing the guidance section of EAGGF), will no longer Union to realise the strategic objectives of be one of the Structural Funds, but will be its employment policy. a separate funding instrument under the • The European Agricultural Guidance and responsibility of DG Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGGF – Guidance • The former funding instrument for Natura Section), which contributes to the structural 2000 (LIFE Nature) will no longer exist after reform of the agriculture sector and Com- 2007. Natura 2000 funding will be provided mon Agricultural Policy (CAP) and to rural through existing EU funding lines (“integra- development. tion option”). One single financial instru- • The Financial Instrument for Fisheries ment for the environment will be established Guidance (FIFG), the specific fund for the (so called LIFE+) and will replace the large structural reform of the fisheries sector. number of different environmental funds that were in existence previously (eg forest As an illustration of Structural Funds priorities, in focus). Most of the money allocated to LIFE+ the period between 2000 and 2006: will be administered by the Member States • About € 49.3 billion (22.5% of the overall themselves – this is a major change from Structural Fund allocations) was available the current approach where the LIFE fund is for transport, energy and telecommunica- administered by the European Commission tions networks in Member States and acced- ing and candidate countries. Even with these administrative changes, EU • € 52.2 billion (23.8% of the allocations) was funding mechanisms and the problems associ- earmarked to promote the development, mod- ated with them are expected to be similar in the ernisation and cooperation of enterprises. 2007–2013 period (WWF 2005c). • The European Social Fund received an allocation of some € 62.1 billion, representing 28.3% of the total Structural Funds (CEC 12 For a map of Objective 1 regions, see 2003a). http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/objective1/map_en.htm 21

Figure 2: Map of eligible regions receiving transitional support under the Objective 1 of the Structural Funds. Grey colour indicates regions that are entitled for full support and light grey indicates regions eligible for transitional support. Source: European Commission DG Regional Policy web pages (23 Nov 2005) 22

Annual regional policy budgets in the European Community in € millions

1970 1980 1990 2000 The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance ESF 37.0 700.5 3212.0 7675.0 (FIFG, Regulation 2792/1999) was established EAGGF 58.4 314.6 1825.3 3510.4 in the early 1990s to improve the competitive- Guarantee section ness of the ﬁsheries sector through ﬁnancially

ERDF - 793.4 4554.1 14226.4 supporting the restructure of industry. Measures EFF - - - 498.0 included under FIFG were fleet renewal and Cohesion - - - 2800.0 modernisation of fishing vessels, adjustment fund of fishing capacity, socio-economic measures, Total 95.4 1808.5 9591.4 31957.0 aquaculture, finding new market outlets and Number of 6 9 12 15 innovative actions. In the programming period member states 2000–2006, a total of € 4,119,340,000 was allocated to Member States under the FIFG. Source: European Commission, http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy The current FIFG will end in 2006 and will be replaced by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) for the period 2007–2013. The Cohesion Fund is an additional structural instrument aimed at assisting Member States to The EFF, like the FIFG, is to play a dual role: reduce economic and social disparities and to firstly in adding value to resource exploitation by stabilise their economies. It has been in opera- helping to adjust the structures of the production since 1994. The Cohesion Fund can finance tion sector and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) up to 85% of eligible expenditure for investments monitoring tools; and secondly in maintaining into large infrastructure measures for environ- cohesion of populations and areas dependent ment and transport. The Member States that on fishing. were eligible for assistance through the Cohe- sion Fund are those whose Gross National 13 Refer to Product (GNP) per capita is below 90% of the http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/funds/procf/cf_en.htm. EU-average13. © WWF-Canon Vorauer / Anton Traditional fishing on the Danube near Vardim island, Bulgaria. 23

3.1.2 Agricultural funding

National Strategic Plans (NSPs) are national The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is rec- plans that present an overall strategic vision with ognised as a major driver of landuse in Europe. regard to the medium term development policy The EAGGF provides funding for measures to of the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the support implementation of the CAP, including Member States. They should identify the most direct payments and funding for rural develop- relevant elements of the CFP for the Member ment including agri-environment schemes. The State’s fisheries and aquaculture sectors, and Guidance section of EAGGF is a Structural Fund focus on the prioritised interventions. NSPs and is targeted at Objective 1 areas. The Guar- are broader than the CFP alone however, and antee section is not a Structural Fund, and funds should relate equally to other specific aspects rural development measures outside Objective 1 not covered by the CFP (eg environment, region- areas, along with direct payments across the EU. al planning, employment), and the interactions Both direct payments and rural development between fishing and other aspects of maritime measures can have impacts on biodiversity, as affairs. both may drive changes in types of agriculture and land use. Agricultural funding is particularly National Operational Programs (NOPs) are na- complex, as both the eligibility for payments and tional plans developed by the Member States, in the quantity are very variable. much the same way as the NSPs. However, they are much more specific and focused, and set Table 1: out how the Member States will operationalise EAGGF Rural development expenditure the EFF funds, therefore setting the framework by main measures 2000–200614 for implementing the policies and priorities to be co-financed by the EFF. An activity should Rural development measures € Million Share therefore not be funded under the EFF if it is not Investments in farms 4682.0 9.5% in the NOP. Young farmers 1824.0 3.7% Vocational training 344.0 0.7% Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is Early retirement 1423.0 2.9% a procedural tool for assessing – ex ante – the Less favoured areas and areas 6128.0 12.5% impacts of plans and programmes (and in some with environmental restrictions countries also policies) on the environment. In Agri-environment 13480.0 27.5% avoiding the future conflict in EU funds under Investments in processing/ 3760.0 7.7% marketing the EFF it is recommended the SEA Directive Afforestation of agricultural 4807.0 9.8% be applied for the NSP and NOP that Member land and other forestry States will be required to develop. The applica- Adaptation and development 12649.0 25.8% tion of the SEA Directive should prevent strate- of rural areas gic conflicts in spending which have previously Total rural development 49097.0 100.0% measures occurred, as demonstrated by the tuna farming case study (see case study 4). NOTE: not all programmed expenditure is included, eg evaluation, technical assistance, and certain commitments relating to the previous programming period. Figures do not include additional funding resulting from the introduction of compulsory modulation.

14 From http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/fact/ rurdev2003/en.pdf. 24

A breakdown of planned rural development Axis 2: Improving environment expenditure for 2000–2006 is given in Table and the countryside 1. This shows that expenditure on agri-environ- • Natural handicap payments to farmers in ment schemes (the rural development measures less favoured areas (LFA’s; eg Mountain that most often have significant positive impacts areas) for biodiversity) averages around € 1.926 million • Natura 2000 payments per year15. Total spending on rural development • Agri-environment measures amounted to around 13% of the CAP budget in • Animal welfare payments 2000–2002 (EEA 2004a), and amounts to ap- • Several measures related to afforestation proximately 7.2% of the total EU budget. and forest management A minimum of 25% of the national envelope has The reformed regulation for the Rural Develop- to be spent on axis 2. The EU co-financing rate ment Funds, the EAFRD, will come into force on is limited to a maximum of 55% (80% in conver- 1 January 2007. It is based on four axes, each gence regions). with its own set of measures: Axis 3: Improving quality of life Axis 1: Improving competitiveness and diversification of farming and forestry • Diversification to non agricultural activities • Improving and developing infrastructure • Support for the creation of micro related to the development and adaptation enterprises of agriculture and forestry • Encouragement of tourism • Supporting farmers participating in food • Village renewal quality schemes A minimum of 10% of the national envelope has • Establishing young farmers to be spent on axis 3. The EU co-financing rate • Supporting semi-subsistence farmers in is limited to a maximum of 50% (75% in conver- new Member States to become competitive gence regions). A minimum of 10% of the national envelope has to be spent on axis 1. The EU co-financing rate Axis 4: The LEADER-axis is limited to a maximum of 50% (75% in conver- Each programme must have a LEADER ele- gence regions). ment for the implementation of bottom-up local development strategies by local action groups. A minimum of 5% of national programme funding is reserved for LEADER, thus encouraging the implementation of integrated, high-quality and original strategies for sustainable development, focusing on partnerships and networks of exchange of experience.

The total budget for the EAFRD remains to be decided, but is likely to be approximately 75 billion for the whole programming period 15 Refer to http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/fact/ € rurdev2003/en.pdf for more information on rural development 2007–2013. spending. 25

3.1.3 Operation of the funds

The EU Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF, The Commission does, however, have the EAGGF (Guidance) and FIFG) operate through chance to examine Member State strategic and a “programming” approach (see Figure 3). This operational programming documents and ensure involves the preparation of multi-annual plans by that these contain the necessary measures to Member States in partnership with the Commis- address the priorities that are identiﬁed in the sion. The programming approach means that the Strategic Guidelines for each fund. Each Regula- Commission is not involved in the selection of tion also contains a “partnership clause” which speciﬁc projects in the Member States. It is up requires designated stakeholders to be involved to the national (or regional) authorities to select in preparation, monitoring and evaluation of the the projects that are of the highest priority in programmes. each programme. The LIFE fund and the Cohesion Fund until 2006 do not operate through programmes, though this will change for the 2007–2013 period. Instead, individual projects are proposed by national authorities, and these are then examined and approved by the Commission (“centralised approach”). Due to the limited budget of about Figure 3: € 60 million per year, LIFE has generally been Programming architecture (generic) of most use as a “pump priming” fund to get for EU Structural Funds projects running, or to fund projects that have (diagram by Stefanie Lang WWF-EPO). not been eligible under other European funds. 26

3.2 EU funds and nature: Example of EU budget threat or advantage? allocations: 2004

Allocation % of Amount While the majority of funds available for alloca- total € million tion to Member States have environment and/or Agricultural aid granted under 44% 42.889 nature as a consideration, these considera- the EAGGF Guarantee Section (European Agricultural Guid- tions are generally not the driving purpose of ance and Guarantee Fund) European funding. The exception to this has Structural operations (structur- 34% 33.142 been the LIFE fund (which is generally limited al and cohesion expenditure) to Natura 2000 pilot projects, eg those that are External action 7% 6.823 developing “best practice”) and some agri-en- Internal policies 7% 6.823 vironment measures. However, by comparison Administrative expenditure 6% 5.849 with the amounts available under the Structural Other 2% 1.950 and Cohesion Funds, the LIFE-Nature budget Total 100% 97.476 is very small – 0.06% of the total budget in Data from http://europa.eu.int/comm/budget/faq/index_en.htm#6 2004 compared with 34% of the total budget allocated to Structural and Cohesion funds. In By contrast: fact, the combined annual budgets for the CAP • The total budget for LIFE-Nature is and Structural Funds are approximately 1,200 around € 60 million per year, represent- (one thousand and two hundred) times as large ing 0.06% of the total EU budget. as the annual budget for LIFE-Nature during the • Agri-environment spending is around 2000–2006 period. In Greece for the program- € 1.926 million per year, representing ming period 2000–2006 only around 3% of the around 2% of the total EU budget. available Community Support Framework (6% if renewable energy is added) are channelled to the environment, while another 4.7% is target- ing resource management measures. On the The European Commission has accepted that other hand almost 40% of the available money Western Europe’s population density and level is used to fund projects with anticipated nega- of industrialisation have seriously impaired tive impacts on the environment, such as large biodiversity (CEC 2004a). It has also stated that infrastructure works (Liarikos 2004). continuing threats to biodiversity include: 1. Overexploitation of natural resources, ﬁsh- The implication of this imbalance is that un- ing, collection and trade in species and less consideration of biodiversity and nature is parts of species, hunting in some instances. included in selection of projects and design of 2. Urban sprawl, intensive agriculture and programmes for the other funds, there is a risk of forestry (and associated infrastructure). overwhelming negative impacts on biodiveristy. 3. Extension of road, rail, inland navigation and electricity networks which fragment habitats Therefore the number of projects where Member and displace some species. States, European institutions, and stakeholders have worked together to create positive outcomes for nature16 need more attention and support in future.

16 WWF, Natuur en Milieu and Land Use Policy Group, 2005. Rural Development Environment Programmig Guidelines. Available at www.lupg.org.uk/uploaded_photos/pubs_elcomanualﬁnal.pdf. 27

3.2.1 The positive side: EU funds supporting biodiversity

Yet EU funds are being used for some of the There are many situations where the Commis- exact activities that the Commission has recog- sion, Member States and regions have worked nised as key threats. In some cases, the provi- to develop projects that produce “win-win” sion of such funds may be limiting Europe’s situations, ie positive outcomes for biodiversity ability to meet its commitments to halt biodiver- alongside economic and/or social improvements. sity loss by 2010. Some examples of EU funded In addition to projects supported through LIFE- projects contributing to these threats to nature Nature, other funds (in particular the Struc- are discussed below, and these are set out in tural Funds and EAGGF) have been applied to more detail in the case studies (see Chapter 5). projects with signiﬁcant beneﬁts to nature.

The previous operation of the funds may be able Examples of such projects include: to provide lessons that will enable improvements • ERDF contributing to conservation of the to be implemented in the upcoming 2007–2013 Monk Seal in Greece through education, programming period, and some suggestions awareness-raising, preparation of informa- for such improvements are given in the recom- tion materials and population monitoring mendations of this report. Although an undue (WWF 2005c). focus on negative cases is not always the most • EAGGF used in Austria for the Nature constructive approach, it is useful to examine Protection Plan project that aimed to in- situations where there have been negative crease awareness in farmers of the value of impacts and to establish the drivers that have led the landscapes they manage, and provide to these impacts. In this way, practices can be guidance in identifying valuable habitats changed and conclusions drawn up to ensure and communicating the beneﬁts of nature sound use of funds in the future. conservation to consumers (WWF 2005c). © Dieter Schewig © Dieter Ramsar Information Centre “Unterwasserreich” at Schrems, Austria. 28

2000–2006 Objectives: Structural Funds allocation in the UK • EAGGF used in Italy to develop eco-tourism % of total Amount opportunities linked to the Po Delta. These € million Funds also facilitated cooperation with an- Objective 1 38% 6.019 other wetland area in Ireland,which enabled Objective 2 26% 4.138 the two projects to share information and Objective 3 29% 4.568 experiences (WWF 2005c). Community initiatives 6% 0.94 • ERDF used in Finland to develop a nature Total 100% 15.665 centre in a valuable wetland area. The programme aimed to create employment as well Objective 1: To assist in development and as enhance the conservation of a valuable structural adjustment of EU regions. Natura site (WWF 2005c). Objective 2: To support the economic and • ERDF used in Austria for the establishment social conversion of areas facing structural of the first Ramsar information centre in Aus- difficulties (particularly in areas of industrial tria. The centre was aimed towards Ramsar decline, rural areas, urban areas and fishery site conservation and wetlands awareness dependent areas). raising and regional tourism development17. Objective 3: To support the adaptation • ESF used in Germany (Bavaria) to create and modernisation of education and training jobs in the field of nature conservation systems and employment policies. (WWF 2005c). Source: Scottish Executive 2001 (from Scottish Parliament • ERDF used in Greece for the conservation Information Centre publication: subject map Devolved Area and management of the Natura 2000 net- 01/03; 4 April 2001), www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_subj_maps/smda01-03.pdf work, although the overall allocated budget has been minimal (WWF Greece, unpubl.).

Nature conservation projects should not be seen It is estimated that over 125,000 European jobs or portrayed as a drain on local economies, but are supported by nature-conservation related as an asset. In many cases, Member State au- activities. In the UK, spending on local goods thorities seem to lack awareness of the possibili- and services at RSPB-Birdlife’s protected sites ties for “win-win” situations where environmental is more than € 28 million each year (Birdlife projects also provide socio-economic beneﬁts. International 2005). IEEP and WWF completed a project in 2002 that highlighted the possible positive impacts from the implementation of Natura 2000 (ten Brink et al 2002). Some of the beneﬁts noted were: • Increased tourism opportunities • Developing products and logos associated with Natura 2000 • Amenity/leisure and health value • Capacity building and educational opportunities • Creation of new employment

17 See www.unterwasserreich.at 29

3.2.2 The negative side: EU funds threatening biodiversity

There are many opportunities to do more. • EU funds for overexploitation Projects that provide opportunities to contribute of resources leading to biodiversity alongside other objectives (such to biodiversity loss as risk reduction) should also be promoted more widely. For example, the Cansino project in The European Commission has stated that due Portugal18 (currently being undertaken by WWF to overfishing, 80% of the fish stocks in the EU Mediterranean Programme, other partners and face collapse or are of unknown status. In 2001, the Portuguese Reforestation Commission) 40% of all EU fish catches were taken from involves restoring burnt areas and re-design- stocks considered to be below safe biological ing forest landscapes in order to make them limits (CEC 2004a, see also Fig. 4). Although more resistant to fires. Cork oak trees will play the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy19 a key role as they are naturally resistant to fire. is to “ensure exploitation of living aquatic Patches of natural cork oak trees will be planted resources that provides sustainable economic, in eucalyptus plantations as barriers against fires environmental and social conditions”, operations (see case study 1). by the European fishing industry have long been criticised by environmental scientists and NGOs However, there are still several issues of concern for being unsustainable and leading to overex- relating to the expenditure of funds that benefit ploitation of fish stocks. biodiversity in Europe, such as: The case of the Bluefin Tuna fishery in the Medi- • The quantity of allocated funds, terranean illustrates the complexities of applying • The Member States’ administrative capac- fisheries funds. European funds from the FIFG ity to use these funds in an efficient and have been used to support the modernisation rational manner of the French and Spanish purse seine fleets in • The relationship between the use of these recent years. This has had the effect of increas- funds and the management and conserva- ing capacity for purse seining of Bluefin Tuna, tion needs of Natura 2000 (see also Chap- a species that is being fished unsustainably ac- ter 4.1). cording to scientific advice (see case study 4).

Tuna farming has been eligible for aquaculture support under FIFG, although it is based on catches of wild tuna that are kept in sea cages before being harvested. EU funds have been used to increase aquaculture capacity, modern- ise facilities, construct cold stores etc. In 2004, WWF estimated that at least € 19–20 million of European funds had been allocated to tuna farming since 2000.

18 For more information, see www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/ features/index.cfm?uNewsID=22370 © WWF/Ezequiel Navío © WWF/Ezequiel

19 Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 Caught Yellow Fin Tuna (Germa albacora) in a marine farm on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of ﬁsheries in the Canary Islands, Spain. resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. 30

Figure 4: Trends in mean trophic levels of ﬁsheries landing 1950–2000 The graphs demonstrate that the mean trophic level of ﬁsheries landings, i.e. the mean position of the catch in the food chain, has declined globally at a rate of approximately 0.1 per decade. The decline is particularly visible in the North Atlantic. The graph is based on aggregation of data from over 180,000 half-degree latitude/longitude cells. Data for the North Atlantic is shown in grey and for Coastal waters is shown in black.

Source: Pauly, D. & Watson, R. 2005

The Bluefin Tuna is a top predator that feeds The Bluefin Tuna case study shows how a fish on fish, squid and crustaceans. Removing it stock has been overexploited as a result of from the Mediterranean ecosystem, or even incoherent planning and allocation of funds. substantially decreasing its numbers could lead There was no foresight in the management of the to ecosystem perturbations and cascading ef- stock, as juvenile tunas were harvested for tuna fects such as those that took place in southern farming, whilst the adults were also being fished California when sea otters were removed by over out. This fishing pressure on both the juveniles hunting. The loss of sea otters led to an increase and the mature tuna, created an ever decreasing in sea urchin numbers which eventually resulted spawning stock biomass (SSB). With reduced in a reduction of the southern Californian kelp reproductive capacity the stock became prone to forests themselves (Millennium Ecosystem As- overexploitation. sessment 2005). 31

• EU funds for intensive agriculture and forestry leading to biodiversity loss

This outcome clearly contradicts the sustain- Arable land, forestry and permanent grassland ability principle of the Common Fisheries Policy, are key land uses in Europe. In total they cover and could lead to irreversible damage to the more than 50% of total EU land area (Young et ecosystem. Although aquaculture and ﬁsheries al 2005, Baldock et al 2005). In many cases, are treated as two very separate activities, there sites that are part of the Natura 2000 network is a clear negative synergetic effect on the wild are used for agricultural and forestry activities, stock which is affected by both exploitation ac- and in some situations these activities form an tivities (aquaculture/tuna ranching and ﬁsheries). essential part of site-management.

The Commission should require Member States However, in other cases, agricultural and forestry to carry out a SEA when developing their activities have had negative impacts on biodi- National Strategic Plans under the proposed versity, and in some places these activities have EFF. Funding should only be provided under been supported by European funds. For exam- this precondition in order to avoid conflict of ple, in Portugal, the management of forest land- investment between the management of the fish scapes is highly conditional on EU policies and stocks and biodiversity. This would be the case funding schemes but there is limited capacity for the Bluefin Tuna. to design ecologically sound and cost-effective measures. Policies are not able to address man- The sites that will make up the terrestrial portion agement on a landscape scale, and an undue of the Natura 2000 network have now largely focus on local measures such as the clearance been designated (or nominated in the case of of undergrowth for fire prevention using heavy the new Member States). However, the selection machinery has been damaging for biodiversity. and designation of marine sites has still not been Maintenance of the montado in good condition done, despite the fact that the original deadline is important for species such as the Spanish for this work has expired. Large fish like tuna can Imperial Eagle (Aquila adalberti), Bonelli’s Eagle be expected to make up an important part of the (Hieraaetus fasciatus), and Black Stork (Ciconia ni- ecosystems that should be protected at such gra), and also for the Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus), marine sites. the world’s most threatened cat species (refer to case study 1 for further details).

Newly created © WWF/Gerald Dick olive plantations on Crete. 32

Intensive vegetable growing in plastic greenhouses on Crete. © WWF/Gerald Dick

Support for the irrigation of dryland areas has Investments in irrigation have been justified been criticised for being unsustainable, and has in some cases (see eg case study 8) on the also had negative impacts on biodiversity. In grounds that they will stabilise rural populations Spain, irrigation supported by EU Rural Develop- by facilitating continued farming. However, irriga- ment Funds has affected species such as Kes- tion schemes are often concentrated outside trel (Falco tinunculus), Great Bustard (Otis tarda), key rural areas that could be subject to aban- and Spanish Imperial Eagle (Aquila adaberti) donment (eg irrigation in coastal areas where (Dwyer et al 2000, case study 8). human populations tend to be higher). These schemes actually often have a negative impact Irrigation not only changes agricultural land- in neighbouring dryland areas where they may scapes, but also drives construction of water-re- further reduce relative competitiveness of dry- lated infrastructure such as dams and channels. lands through support of agriculture elsewhere. Construction of dams can have particularly Subsequently this can eventually lead to land significant environmental effects, both locally abandonment (and associated negative social and downstream. In addition to the fragmenta- and environmental effects) in the very areas tion of habitats for species such as the Iberian whose populations were originally used to justify Lynx, dam construction has been a driver in the funds (see case study 8). the clearance of habitats with high biodiversity values (see case study 2). A clear illustration of the complex interrelations between nature and agricultural payments can EU-funded dam building projects in Spain and be seen in the case of olives. While CAP pay- Portugal have frequently met with high levels ments remained linked to production levels for of opposition from environmental NGOs and olives and olive oil, the high productivity of irri- the public. In many cases, the construction of gated plantations meant that they were more prof- dams has been justified for provision of drinking itable. The difference in net income between ir- water for urban areas, but an analysis by WWF rigated and dryland plantations was estimated as and others has indicated that the real reason for being as much as 600% in some cases (Beaufoy construction is to provide water for the irrigation 2001). The disparity in income led to abandon- of crops such as sugar beet, maize and cotton ment of dryland olive plantations, or conversion (see case study 8). to irrigation at the expense of wildlife. Reforms to CAP payment systems have now altered this situation somewhat, but sufficient improvements have not yet been made (see case study 8). In addition to these “direct” effects from irrigation, demand for water to irrigate crops is driving further development of dams (eg La Breña II dam) with the associated effects discussed above. 33

• EU funds for transport networks which fragment habitats Recognising the problem: leading to biodiversity loss the 2004 report on Structural Funds A specific programme setting out priorities for transport networks (the Trans-European Trans- “…particular difficulties were encountered port Networks – TENS-T) was established in in the new Member States with the applica- 199620. In 2003, a revised TENS-T proposal was tion of the Environmental Impact Assess- agreed21. Financial support for TENS-T projects ment Directive and the Birds and Habitats comes from the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund, and Directives (for the Natura 2000 network). from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and Taking a proactive approach, Commissioners European Investment Fund (EIF)22. The revised Barnier and Wallström jointly wrote to all the proposal identifies 30 priority transport projects new Member States on 1 March 2004 warn- throughout Europe. ing them about the difficulties of co-financing without complete Natura 2000 lists.” Impacts of transport networks on nature can occur at several levels. Direct habitat damage For more information, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_ policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/fs2004/annexe.pdf from habitat destruction and fragmentation is perhaps the most obvious, but in addition, transport networks may also have secondary effects such as hydrological impacts, increased rates In Poland, debate continues about the route of of colonisation by invasive species, secondary the Via Baltica express road to connect the Baltic urbanisation, and facilitation of increased extrac- States to the rest of the EU. This road has the tive activities such as forestry. potential to have negative impacts on several very significant sites that have been proposed as The direct negative effects of transport networks part of the Natura 2000 network. The section of on nature can currently be observed in several the route that is causing most controversy has European countries. In Greece, construction not been financed by EU funds yet, but EU funds of the Egnatia Highway is predicted to lead to have been used for other parts of the route (see fragmentation of the Greek population of brown case study 5). bears. The project has not yet been completed, and whilst NGOs hope that suggested mitiga- tion measures will reduce impacts on the bear population, the overall impact will undoubtedly be significant. This case clearly illustrates the need for coordination between different parts of the Commission, as funds for the project were approved by one Directorate-General, while another approved funds for a nature protection project to protect the bears which may now be under threat (see case study 3).

20 Decision 1692/96.

21 See Decision 884/2004 and Regulation 807/2004.

22 For more information, see http://europa.eu.int/comm/ten/transport/ﬁnancing/ﬁgures_en.htm. 34

3.2.3 The future of EU funds – steering towards common ground

On the Danube, the impact of clearing so-called As discussed in Chapter 2, most of Europe’s inland navigation “bottlenecks” to enable the nature is now linked closely with human activi- river to be used as a freight corridor could have ties, and it is under pressure from many different serious implications for wetland ecosystems and factors. A growing European population has led associated species. The EU has included several to intensification of farming practices and in- Danube river stretches of high biodiversity value creased urbanisation and urban sprawl. Climate in its priority projects under the TENS-T and in- change is predicted, by the end of this century, tends to allocate substantial funds to completing to raise global temperature by between 1.4° and developments on the river by 2015. NGOs are 5.8° Celsius and the sea level by between 9 and concerned that the impact of the projects is not 88 cm. Many species will not be able to adapt or being assessed in a cohesive manner, but rather to move to other regions (CEC 2004a). The Mil- in a piecemeal fashion, which avoids considera- lennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) found tion of the overall significance of environmental that over the past few hundred years, humans impacts. The area that may be affected by a full have increased species extinction rates by as shipping corridor on the Danube includes po- much as 1,000 times the rates that were typical tential Natura 2000 sites and Ramsar sites (see over Earth’s history. case study 6) and could prevent the achievement of the EU’s Water Framework Directive’s “good Under these circumstances, Europe cannot ecological and chemical status” objectives in afford to treat biodiversity as a single issue that this river basin. is simply considered as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). A more positive meas- In addition to the projects examined in detail ure is needed to promote biodiversity concerns in the case studies, some of the other projects alongside safeguards such as EIA. The same identified under TENS-T are also of great threats (eg climate change, natural hazards) that concern to environmental groups, including the threaten European species and ecosystems may rail/road bridge over the Strait of Messina23,24 as well threaten economic and social prosperity. (between mainland Italy and Sicily) which is considered to be a threat to migrating birds; and Environmental integration is a requirement under the proposal for a motorway in the Kresna Gorge the EC Treaty. Article 6 of the Treaty states that (Bulgaria) rail/road corridor where potential “environmental protection requirements must be Natura 2000 sites could be threatened25. integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies […] in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development”. However, despite this political commitment, coordination and cooperation between the European agencies dealing with different sectoral issues still appears limited, and this situation is mir- rored at the level of Member State and regional 23 See www.rspb.org.uk/international/policy/bridge.asp. administrations.

24 The EU Commission is now investigating environmental concerns about the Messina bridge: see www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_ we_work/europe/news/news.cfm?uNewsID=24255.

25 See www.rspb.org.uk/international/policy/tetn.asp, and www.birdlife. org/eu/TENS-T.html. 35

• The 2007–2013 funding period: Opportunities to strengthen the chance for a bright future? the 2007–2013 funding proposals in support of biodiversity: The new Regulations that set out the EU funds for the 2007–2013 funding period appear to Before Member States can distribute the hold more opportunities for support and con- funds, the following steps will have to be sideration of nature and biodiversity than their taken for each fund*. Each step provides an predecessors. The Commission has indicated opportunity to strengthen the measures in that future funds for Natura 2000 will be largely favour of biodiversity. The steps are: provided through existing Community funding instruments rather than through a designated EU strategic guidelines – will be separate fund. This may give positive results if adopted by the Council for each of the funds, those authorities that are accustomed to dealing covering the entire programming period with development and economic issues are 2007–2013. These guidelines will set the encouraged to gain a better understanding of Community’s priorities at a strategic level, environmental issues. with a view to implementing each of the priority headings laid down in the respective Most of the Regulations that will govern the Regulation. They will provide a framework for revised EU funds are still under discussion at national implementation, and could require the point of writing this report, and the proposals that Member States pay particular attention may still change signiﬁcantly. However, it is clear to Natura 2000 funding needs. that while possibilities for environmental integration may exist in the texts, many key decisions as National strategic plans or frame- to whether funding is allocated to projects that works – are to be prepared by the Member will support nature will be left to Member States. States and negotiated with the Commission Appropriate programmes, project selection and before operational programmes are put into monitoring at the Member State and more local place. This is normally to happen within three levels are essential. months of adopting the EU level guidance.

The European Commission, Member State Operational programmes – will be de- governments and authorities, regional planners, veloped by the Member States and adopted NGOs, and the general European public all have by the Commission, highlighting only the a role to play in ensuring effective and environ- most important operations, or in the case of mentally friendly use of European funds in the the EFF specific implementing provisions as future. Awareness of the drivers that can lead outlined in the Regulation. In the case of the to the use of funds in ways that are destructive EAFRD, the funds should be implemented to nature is vital (see discussion in Chapter 4). through the rural development programmes. If the EU is to achieve its goal of halting biodi- The decision adopting a rural development versity loss by 2010, it certainly cannot afford to programme should fix the maximum contri- continue funding the destruction and fragmenta- bution from the fund for each priority axis. tion of habitats, the overharvesting of natural Throughout the process, there should be resources, and environmentally damaging inten- close consultation with relevant partners. sification of agricultural and forestry practices as it has in the past, and as demonstrated in the * Note: LIFE+ has a different procedure case studies in this report. 36

3.3 Conclusions and recommendations

The European funding system is complex, but Given current and future TENS-T plans, it is there are certainly opportunities for EU funds highly unlikely that construction of European to support nature and biodiversity and these transport infrastructure will slow down over the appear to be enhanced in the Regulations that 2007–2013 period. Local, national and regional will govern the funds in the 2007–2013 fund- politicians often see promises to improve trans- ing period. Many win-win projects have already port networks as a way to gain support in areas been realised, and there is potential for more. with flagging economic prospects. However, Effective implementation of the nature and water such developments must not be permitted if protection Directives should limit the possibili- they infringe the requirements of EU Directives ties for damaging projects. However, increased or significantly threaten biodiversity values. The information is needed on both the opportunities European Commission does pursue Member for win-win projects, and the values of nature pro- States who have infringed the provisions govern- tection. If the EU is serious about encouraging ing the implementation of the Habitats Directive these kinds of “win-win” projects, its agencies in the past (see eg C-209/04, a recent case in must take a more active role in educating Mem- Austria where authorities were found to have ber State authorities and the European public. breached the Habitats Directive by failing to adequately consider alternatives to a motorway Agriculture and forestry will continue to have development26). This enforcement is important, a very significant influence on European biodi- but in order to avoid multiple interventions by the versity for the foreseeable future. Application Commission, measures should be put in place to of funds in a manner that is consistent with ensure that European funds are never applied to European commitments to maintain biodiversity projects that are not in line with the nature and is essential if the 2010 goal is to be met. The EU water protection Directives. must not fund further intensification of agriculture and forestry practices that will threaten The structure and content of the national European biodiversity. programmes for the different funding lines for the 2007–2013 period will be very important. Member States need to develop good national programmes that will significantly contribute to the goal of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The European Commission will examine the national programmes to ensure that this goal is taken into account.

26 See Case C-209/04. Judgement (in French) available at http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Submit&a lldocs=alldocs&docj=docj&docop=docop&docor=docor&docjo=docjo& numaff=c-209%2F04&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mot s=&resmax=100 37

Recommendations

Member States should • Include references to support nature and biodiversity (and halt biodiversity loss by 2010) in their national programmes for use of European funds for 2007–2013. • Ensure that all projects for which they are responsible comply with the provisions of the nature and water protection Directives. • Promote good coordination between their own national, regional and local authorities and agencies (eg between Ministries of Finance and Environment).

The European Community should • Ensure that the ﬁnal Regulations (and Strategic Guidelines) for European funds for the 2007–2013 funding period contain strong references to the nature and water protection Directives, and Natura 2000. • Ensure that mechanisms are in place to promote coordination between different funding instruments, and to promote coordinated planning at all levels of governance. • Enforce effectively the requirement that all projects using European funds comply with the requirements of the nature and water protection Directives, and withdraw funding where breaches are detected. • Monitor the contents of Member State programmes for use of European funds in the 2007–2013 period, and ensure that nature and biodiversity requirements are addressed in all programmes. • Provide information to the Member States on the opportunities for funding of nature conservation activities, and on the possibilities for win-win projects. © WWF/Gerald Dick

LIFE funded project to support the populations of Iberian Lynx in Andalusia, Spain. 38

4. Drivers for use of EU funds

4.1 What are the drivers Through the operation of the European funds, and how do they operate? there are certain key opportunities for the European Community and others (eg NGOs) to It is apparent that the provision of European positively influence Member States to ensure funding can present both risks and opportunities use of funds to support nature and biodiversity. for nature conservation – the funds themselves In terms of establishing priorities for the 2007– are not “good” or “bad”. The examples set 2013 period, the run up to 2007 will be a critical out in the case studies illustrate that there are period of time, as Member States are now pre- a number of factors (or “drivers”) that can push paring their programming documents for use of the use of funds to be “positive” or “negative” for the major European funds. In addition, the Com- nature. Some of these are described in ta- munity Guidance documents for the use of most ble 2. In order to illustrate the operation of these European funds have not yet been finalised, and drivers, and the complexity of the real world, it is their contents will have a significant influence on useful to use a hypothetical example (see Box: the content of Member State programmes. Farmer Jones, p. 42). It is possible that there will be a mid-term review As discussed in Chapter 2, there are already of the 2007–2013 funds in 2010. This would significant European legal and political commit- give the Member States, the European Commu- ments to protect nature and biodiversity. Howev- nity, and other stakeholders the opportunity to er, in some situations, Member State authorities examine whether the funds are living up to their may be tempted to ignore these commitments in potential to support conservation of European order to respond to local political pressure. It is nature and biodiversity. It will also be an oppor- the role of the European Community to monitor tunity to assess whether the 2010 goal of halting Member State activities that have implications biodiversity loss in Europe has been met. for the maintenance of European nature and biodiversity. Table 2: Factors which may drive positive or negative use of EU funds

Positive Negative • Coordinated/integrated approach to environmental protec- • Poor coordination between national/regional/local tion activities with good communication between different planning authorities agencies and levels of governance • Lack of transparency/involvement • Open and transparent planning process of interest groups and actors and involvement of all actors • Political promises (especially for development • Political acceptance and uptake of opportunities of infrastructure) which are pursued without regard for provided by win-wins environmental commitments • Consumer education, consumer demand for products from • Complexity sustainable systems • Consumer demand driving unsustainable production • Clear guidance on possibilities for funding nature projects • Lack of information about possibilities • Good monitoring and enforcement of European law (includ- to use funds for nature conservation ing the nature and water protection Directives, • Perception that biodiversity and nature are “expensive EIA Directive) luxuries” and support for jobs is more important • Enthusiasm generated by specific local actors (lack of awareness of possible win-wins) • Communication on nature and biodiversity • Inadequate environmental impact assessments – lack of • Broad information about the use of funds engagement in (or commitment to) the assessment process • Requirements to show short-term economic benefits (limits funding applications for nature projects where a long term strategic approach is needed) • Lack of regard for scientific advice 39

Although the example of Farmer Jones is The case studies (Chapter 5) also illustrate the a hypothetical one, it builds on many of the real operation of the drivers described in Table 2. situations that are illustrated in the case stud- For example: ies (see chapter 5). The European environment • Case studies 3 and 6 illustrate the problems is very complex, and the potential for conflict that can arise when Environmental Impact between projects is high without good coordina- Assessments are not carried out adequately, tion. The case studies illustrate this complexity, and where there is poor coordination be- for example: tween government agencies and European • Case study 8 demonstrates how funding authorities. that supported irrigation in some areas • Case studies 5 and 2 illustrate the difficul- reduced competitiveness in other areas ties that can arise when local political com- that were the target of rural development mitments threaten to override commitments support – this has led to land abandonment to protect nature and biodiversity. with negative impacts on biodiversity. • Almost all of the case studies illustrate the • Case study 7 demonstrates how the fund- need for more information on the positive ing of irrigated crops under the Common opportunities that exist under the funds, bet- Agricultural Policy has led to unsustainable ter integration of environment in policy-mak- water use practices, and the need to con- ing, and the need for open and transparent struct new dams, with negative impacts on decision-making. biodiversity. • Case study 4 demonstrates how the funding Another example of poor coordination leading to of measures to increase efficiency of fishing an undesirable outcome for nature can be seen vessels can lead to increased effort, and in Greece, where administrative barriers have subsequent overharvesting of fish stocks. led to poor uptake of funds to support Natu- ra 2000. The Greek ministry with responsibility for infrastructure development and public works, has repeatedly strived to redirect money from a measure related to management of Natura 2000 sites into other areas where it can be used for more politically appealing measures such as urban renewal and infrastructure development (WWF-Greece undated). © Michal Sránský

Grassland management using traditional agricultural techniques helps to keep landscape quality. 40

4.2 Conclusions Key recommendations and recommendations 1. The use of EU funds that conﬂict with The main conclusions from the experiences the Community goal to halt the loss of gained in the case studies included in this report biodiversity by 2010 must be eliminated are the following: (as species and habitats have been threat- 1. In principle the EU funding lines for Agricul- ened in the past). ture, Regional Development and Fisheries 2. The integration of biodiversity and Natura have the potential to support the goal of 2000 as funding priorities into the pro- halting biodiversity loss by 2010, although grammes of major EU funds must become this is not their main target. (For an analysis obligatory. of the opportunities see WWF 2005c). 3. The partnership principle must be sys- 2. The level to which these funds have been tematically, correctly and fully applied in used to support biodiversity has varied the programming implementation and greatly between the Member States over the evaluation processes for EU funds. This 2000–2006 period. means that environmental stakeholders 3. It became obvious that there exists a com- (public and non-governmental) should be plex set of drivers impacting on the use treated as equal partners, have full voting of funds in a positive or negative manner. rights, receive information in a timely fash- Greater awareness about the operation of ion, be consulted properly, have a right to these drivers may help Member States and transparent feedback and be trained and the European Commission in ensuring bet- resourced to play their role efﬁciently. ter use of funds in the 2007–2013 programming period. 4. The European legislation that is already in place (especially the nature and water protection Directives) provides a strong framework for biodiversity protection if it is adequately implemented and enforced.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 41

Member States should The European Commission should • Include references to support nature and • Ensure that nature and biodiversity biodiversity (and halt biodiversity loss by requirements are addressed in all the pro- 2010) in their national programmes for use gramming documents for the 2007–2013 of European funds for 2007–2013. funding period. • Promote good coordination and coopera- • Undertake a mid-term review of the appli- tion between their own national, regional cation of the funds to ensure that they are and local authorities and agencies (eg being used in support of halting the loss between Ministries of Finance, Economic of biodiversity by 2010. Affairs and Environment). • Establish compulsory indicators for the • Develop a biodiversity strategy, analysing ex-ante, mid-term and ex-post evaluation of key threats and potential benefits at national EU Funds. To date, indicators have mainly and regional levels. This strategy should concentrated on management and finan- make clear links to the management of cial control. There should also be indica- Natura 2000 sites, implementation of the tors to assess the environmental conse- Water Framework Directive and to the effec- quences and the impacts on biodiversity tive use of European funds. of measures funded by EU monies. • Shape their national programmes so that • Require DG Environment to establish they meet the financial requirements for an audit group comprising all relevant Natura 2000 implementation which were General Directorates in order to monitor laid down in the Communication from the (at least biannually) the implementation of Commission to the Council and the Euro- the programmes and to ascertain whether pean Parliament on financing Natura 2000 money from EU funds has been used to (COM(2004) 431 final, annexes). achieve the goal to halt the loss of biodi- • Inform and involve interest groups and versity by 2010. stakeholders especially NGO’s in develop- • Require DG Environment, in close co- ing plans for use of European funds. operation with DG Fisheries & Maritime • Make sure that Environmental Impact Affairs, to ensure the application of the Assessments are developed and applied Strategic Environmental Assessment correctly, timely and by independent bodies Directive to the National Strategic Plans especially for infrastructure investments. and National Operational Programmes • Support projects for sustainable rural devel- developed by Member States. opment eg by using LEADER funds. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 42

The case of Farmer Jones – a hypothetical example of drivers in action

Farmer Jones (FJ) has a small landholding in a EU country – ‘Utopia’. His land includes a small woodland area and a stream. It is situated in a mountain area with a low human population. However, nearby there are two large cities. On the coast, there is intensive development for tourism. FJ’s woodland has populations of rare birds, some of which breed there. FJ uses extensive farming methods which support biodiversity. His crops are eligible for some support from the European Agricultural Funds – both direct payments for his harvests of miraclefruit, and some agri-environment payments. FJ is considering starting some eco-tourism activities which could generate more local and sustainable economic activity. But, things are changing on the Jones farm. Utopia is a new Member State of the EU, and its GDP is very low in comparison to other EU countries. It is therefore eligible for signiﬁcant funding through the Structural and Cohesion funds, and its Development Ministry has prepared programming documents for use of these funds (without any stakeholder consultation, and no reference to the Environment Ministry). Local politicians are pushing for a dam on the stream that runs through FJ’s farm to supply water to the cities nearby and promote population growth; and also to supply water to the tourist hotels on the coast. Politicians are also promoting construction of a motorway to connect the two cities (which will pass by the Jones farm). Although these infrastructure development activities require environmental impact assessments, the local politicians have promised development (in order to get elected) and are not interested in a good result for the environment or any delays. The developments are rushed through, without thorough assessment. There is not a strong NGO culture in Utopia, so no objections are voiced.

Water from the dam is channelled towards the coastal area and cities, and as it is excess to current tourism needs, some is used for irrigation of heavenberries (a new and profitable, but water-intensive crop). Though direct support from European funds is not available for the berries, rural development funds are made available under the Utopian rural development programme, in order to develop new agricultural areas at the coast. This includes building of new roads, and support for marketing of heavenberries. Heavenberry production has no benefits for biodiversity – the berries are grown in plastic tunnel houses. As consumers prefer the new heavenberries to miraclefruit, Farmer Jones’ market collapses. The birds that were breeding in his woodland area leave, due to disturbance from the motorway and dam construction. Eventually, Farmer Jones is forced to abandon his farm with negative results for biodiversity. Ecotourism is no longer an option as the natural values in the area have become so degraded due to the dam and the motorway. Farmer Jones is left with no market for his miraclefruit, as consumers prefer heavenberries. The birds in his woodland have flown away due to the disturbances from construction of the motorway and dams, and destruction of their feeding and breeding areas. 43 CASE STUDIESCASE CASE STUDIES 44 5. Case Study 8: Case Study 7: Case Study 6: Case Study 5: Case Study 4: Case Study 3: Case Study 2: Case Study 1: CASE STUDIES Navigation on the Danube and Natura 2000 ontheDanubeandNatura Navigation 2000 BalticaandNatura Via FisheriesfundsandTuna farming Odelouca Dam and the Monichique Natura 2000site Natura Odelouca DamandtheMonichique Brown Bears andtheEgnatiaHighway Bears Brown toThreats theIberianLynx Agricultural Subsidies andCorkOakEcosystems Biodiversity andIrrigation Biodiversity Agricultural SubsidiesandCorkOakEcosystems Case Study 1 CAP (Pillar1),EAGGF Management of the cork oak ecosystem in oakecosystem Management ofthecork Southern Portugal Portugal Southern &Region Country (similar issues exist intheSpanish (similar issuesexist nfetv n aaigfiepeeto actions. prevention anddamagingfire ineffective and grazing cattle of theintensification instance natural regeneration andlossofbiodiversity. oftree diebacks,reducedincreased severity to alarge extent byported EUfunding.However, Indeed, EUfundingmay somecases inatleast contributes marginally to solve majorproblems this funding is often misdirected, andsoitonly this fundingisoften aggravate such problems, by supporting foraggravate suchproblems, by supporting such astheincreased riskandincidenceoffire, isdirectly orindirectly sup Portugal southern Main effects involvedFunding instrument(s)

dehesas ) - Oliveira, R.&L.Palma, 2003–TheSouth • WWF2005f.Implications ofEUSubsidies • • • Jorge Revez (ADPM) • Alcazar(LPN) Rita • Pedro Beja (ERENA) • Neves Luis Silva (WWFMedPO) • (WWFMedPO) Berrahmouni Nora • Mansourian,S.,Vallauri, D.,Dudley, eds N., • “Montados” landscape, the corklands where landscape,thecorklands “Montados” cattlegraze andplanta Further information/reference Further trees. Monichique, Algarve region,trees. Portugal. Monichique, Algarve growtions ofpineandeucalyptus sideby sidetogether withcork ADPM, 2003.Thispublicationisincluded 2005. Forest Restoration inLandscapes: www.adpm.p www.panda.org/mediterranea Greenbelt CaseStudy The Portugal: inSouthern Oak Ecosystems Beyond plantingtrees, Springer, York. New (in cooperationwithWWFInternational) within theframework oftheWWFMediter ranean project desertiﬁ Green Beltsagainst ern Portugal Green Belt–Forest Land Portugal ern cation. and Policies to the Conservation of Cork and PoliciesofCork to theConservation © WWF-Canon/Sebatian Rich/Hungry Eye Images scape Restoration. Publication edited by t n - - - - - 45

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 46 Cork oak landscapes represent a unique and valu rs het rs rmcmlxitreae is interrelated complex from arise Threats fires. Black Stork ( Due to the biodiversity values forests, ofcork Due to thebiodiversity oak forest has been a key part of Portuguese oak forest ofPortuguese hasbeenakey part overgrazing, overharvesting andforestovergrazing, clear overharvesting (92/43/EEC). However, forests cork are cur berti montado ilex wine bottle stoppers andbuildingmaterial,wine bottlestoppers live vulnerability to andlarge-scale diseases,pests, vulnerability wheat, mushrooms, culturalandecologi acorns, planning. issues into managementpractices andlanduse investment to integrate environmental andsocial oaklandscapesand increase their health ofcork threats, These areas andforestin coastal fires. rently underthreat dueto poormanagement,in andprocessing for harvesting based oncork system economic andprofitable adiverse host oaklandscapes Cork maquis andrichpastures. including theSpanishImperial Eagle( in theWestern Mediterranean. Traditionally cork exacerbated by climate the change,are affecting creasing humanpressure onresources through cal tourism, etc. cies, stone andmaritimepines,wildolive trees, tunities, lack of forest management capacity and tunities, lackofforest managementcapacity ( two oakhabitats cork suchasholmoakandotherspe types ance, land abandonment, urban developmentance, landabandonment,urban mosaicsthatincludemixed habitat are typically able combination of natural and cultural heritage Background subsidies, poverty andlackofeconomicoppor subsidies, poverty sues suchaslackofgoodgovernance, perverse stock andagriculture products suchasolive and ) have Directive beenlisted intheHabitats ), Bonelli’s Eagle( systems which support varied species whichsupport systems Ciconia nigra Hieraaetus fasciatus Quercus suber ). Cork oaklandscapes ). Cork , Quercus Aquila adal ), and ------1. documenting theecologicalandsocio-eco 1. The study focusedThe study onanarea ofabout 4. describing thelinksbetween forest manage 400,000 ha,includingfour 2000sites Natura 2. presenting amulti-scale,hierarchical frame 3. oakforestidentifying cork management 27 ERENA, LPN, ADPM LPN, ERENA, 27 5. recommending changesto regulations and oped by WWFMediterranean Programme in in forest product markets. Theseissueswere development andrural poli nature conservation inbiologically richforests important particularly thuslimitingthe understood, poorly uses are still policies andfundingschemes.However, their In Mediterranean Europe, themanagementof examined thelinksbetween policies,subsidy partners collaboration withPortuguese donment oftraditionallanduses,oakmortality depopulation,aban challenges suchasrural cies andfundscouldplay amajorrole infacing measures. Thisinformationeffective would be to designecologicallysoundandcost- capacity gal Green Belt). The case study looked at: lookedgal Green Belt).Thecasestudy at: oaklandscapesofSouth-Westerncork Portugal. nuneo UFunds EU of Influence addressed inarecent project ( offorest land actual impacts onthesustainability and interlinking corridors (The Southern Portu (TheSouthern and interlinking corridors forest landscapesishighlyconditionalonEU ydoe ag cl oetfie,adchanges and syndrome, large scaleforest fires, wheresuch asthatdominated by oak, thecork schemes and biodiversity conservation inupland conservation schemes andbiodiversity hc a sdt en h benchmarks the which was usedto define work to identifytheFavourable Conserva practices. uptake favourable ofthemost management conserva ment practicesandbiodiversity public regulations andfundingschemes; by practices andhow theiruseisinfluenced ment were ascertained; area; nomic settingsofthestudy tion in cork oakforesttion incork landscapes;and oaklandscapes, (FCS)ofcork tion Status against which the effects offorest whichtheeffects manage against funding schemeswhichmight foster the Suriberia ) devel 27 , which ------This type ofmanagementisnotadequately ad This type The 2000 inNatura important This isparticularly Caldeirao. Lackofattention to regeneration is re Changing thissituationwould require EU/public owners instead of individual landowners, aiming instead ofindividuallandowners, owners patches habitat representing of complementary oak forest ofMonichiqueand intheMountains oak forests inthearea. Inthe2003-2004 period, prevalentone ofthemost managementactions very fragmented. EUsubsidiesare granted tovery woodlands to forests. undisturbed ae nlrto,epnino h odnetwork road the of expansion water infiltration, ment. highly dependentonlandscapescalemanage management toindividual landowners undertake prevention hashadnegative impacts oncork ing sensitive fire species.Inaddition,ineffective negativelyincreases affect humandisturbance, area, canhavein thestudy negative impacts by EUsubsidiesdemon practices supported Its results highlighted that biodiversity conserva Its results highlighted thatbiodiversity dressed by publicpoliciesandfunding current managementregimes, fromdifferent grazed erosion, increased water run-off andreduced erosion, increased water run-off (egclearingofundergrowthglobally ineffective tion in cork oaklandscapesrequirestion incork amosaic threatening theirlong-term sustainability. there have beenlarge cork areas ofburned for ofhabitats through destruction rare andsen at implementing coherent andecologically locallydamagingand actions whichare often forests. cleaningandremoval Scrub which is machinery). heavy using prevention for fire species associated oakforests withcork is and ofhabitats sites, where theconservation scale instead ofisolated actionsatthelocallevel. sound forest management plansatalandscape subsidies to begranted to associationsofland is where landownership schemes, particularly sulting in the ageing of cork oak stands, thereby oakstands, sulting intheageingofcork sitive plantandanimalspecies,increased soil strated thatthesehave negative impacts incork Suriberia project’s ofmanagement analysis ------WWF/IUCN forest landscape restoration (FLR) development new rural With programmes be hre re nbrtfrs 20 rs.Tesmre nrdare red in marked Trees Charred (2003fires). trees forest inburnt Monichique Natura 2000siteMonichique Natura andredesigning re withtheAlgarve Programme inpartnership betvs(uha euto nfiers)should risk) objectives (suchasreduction infire be promoted For example, theCansinoproject more attractive. Projects thatprovide opportuni to make changesto subsidy is anopportunity foring drafted the2007–2013 period,there ers cooperative inorder andotherstakeholders ers omk hmmr eitn ofie,applying to make to themmore resistant fires, ties to alongsideother contribute to biodiversity becomes ofextent oakstands cork the recovery approach. involvesadministration restoring areas in burnt launched inJune05by WWFMediterranean forest withlandown landscapesinconsultation forestry forestation commissionandPortuguese schemes, sothatuseofnaturalregeneration in selected region, to Portugal. becutdown. Monichique, Algarve © WWF-Canon/Sebatian Rich/Hungry Eye Images - - - - 47

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 48 • See also case study 7and8 Seealsocasestudy • WWFunpubl. IberianLynx andpublicworks. • Súarez Luis (WWF-Spain) • JesúsCobo(WWF-Spain) • GuidoSchmidt(WWF-Spain) • Threats toThreats theIberianLynx Case Study 2 Lynx ( EAGGF, ERDF, CohesionFund Support for ofdamsandother construction Support Spain andPortugal &Region Country including fragmentation of habitat for ofhabitat including fragmentation theIberian withnegativeinfrastructure impact onnature, Further information/reference Further Main effects involvedFunding instrument(s) Lynx pardinus ).

• loss and fragmentation ofhabitat. lossandfragmentation • causeddirectly by humansinthe mortality • declineinrabbitpopulations,(thebasicprey • 1. The most recent estimatesThe most for thelynxpopulation The IberianLynx ( 4. October 2002,theIUCNRed ofThreatened List 2. Species changed the status ofthelynxto “Criti Species changedthestatus 3. a nybe ofimdi w ra:Doñana areas: two in has onlybeenconfirmed ing nomore than25breeding females. Breeding both in Andalucia (southwest ofSpain). both inAndalucia(southwest It appears thatdeclineintheIberianlynxpopula It appears decline (WWF-Spain 2003). decline (WWF-Spain cally Endangered” following new evidence of the world’s endangered feline most species.In the World (IUCN)as for Union Conservation tions iscausedby: Main linear infrastructures inLynxMain linearinfrastructures habitat and Sierra de Andújar (Eastern Sierra Morena), deAndújar(Eastern Sierra and Sierra are thatthere are lessthan100 animals,includ Background Highway Toledo –CiudadReal Agricultural pathbetween Villamanrique Freeway to connecttheCiudadReal – Freeway Linares –Albacete of thelynx); de laCondesaandElRocío Puertollano highway andtheExtremaduraPuertollano freeway form oftraps,shootinganddogs; Lynx pardinus scasfidby ) isclassified

- - - 46 Spanish Natura 2000 sites. A particular point 2000sites.46 SpanishNatura Aparticular Crockford 2004). Development suchasroads, ofinfrastructure of thespecies.Inaddition,somedams wasof concern thatsomeoftheproposals (eg Melonares, LaBreña II)are predicted to (WWF Spain2003).20ofthesedamswillhave (SNHP) proposed buildingmore than100 new where there remaining are lynxpopulations still were likely populationsofthe to affect adversely ing theexchange ofindividualsamongthem. populationsandobstruct between thedifferent scasfida goal hetnd Ng and (Nagy threatened” “globally as is classified negative impacts onlynxareas andcorridors, Imperial Eagle( Iberian lynx.Damswere to belocated inareas In 2001, Hydrological theSpanishNational Plan area, creatingIberian lynxdistribution barriers dams in Spain. In 2003, WWF carried outan dams inSpain.In2003,WWFcarried contribute to ofthe thelossandfragmentation dams, railways andotherhumanactivities that the proposed dams could adversely affect affect that theproposed damscouldadversely adversely affect populationsof theSpanish affect adversely oftheproposals intheSNHPandfoundanalysis further threatening thespread andinteraction further Aquila adalberti ), aspeciesthat - • The change of the current Sevilla-Huelva Thechangeof thecurrent • Theagriculturalpathbetween Villaman • Thenew Highway Toledo-Ciudad Real- • The most controversial projectThe most includedinthe June 2004. Nonetheless, waterJune 2004. Nonetheless, saving plansare WWF-Spain has carried out an analysis ofpublic outananalysis hascarried WWF-Spain SNHP was theEbro transfer, aproject thatwas works projects located atornearsites where is due to linear infrastructure. In particular: is dueto Inparticular: linearinfrastructure. impact ontheIberianLynx, indicates theanalysis unpublished). Outof45projects withpotential plants goesaheadfor new anddoubtfulcoastal cancelled by Spain’s PrimeMinister Zapatero in that in16 oflynxhabitat casesthefragmentation transfers and15 new seawater desalination and rural developmentand rural purposes lynx populations are known to exist (WWF-Spain lynx populationsare known to (WWF-Spain exist still notdeveloped ofdams, still andtheconstruction Albacete; andthefreeway to connectthe Ciudad Real-Puertollano highway andthe Ciudad Real-Puertollano ca odadtolne aebe ildin killed been have lynxes two and road ficial Park: this has been converted intoPark: anunof thishasbeenconverted Extremadura freeway are predicted to have thefreeway Linares- Puertollano-Córdoba; (Huelva) whichcrosses DoñanaNature railway to ahighspeedlineispredicted to rique delaCondesa(Sevilla) andElRocío withinthecentral effects barrier important car accidentsthere. affect theDoñanameta-population. affect lynx metapopulation.

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 50 Two ofthedamswithamore relevant impact on The CohesionFund hascontributed to the € Commission. Thetotal budgetofthisproject is NAT/E/8609 hasatotal budgetof Life project thathasbeensubmitted 2005to the El Arenoso inCordoba hasbeenselected by (and theEC provides (Arenoso Dam)thetotal budgetis pean Commissionofabout because we have to considerthatthearea of budget of Euro providedpean Union the Dam) II Breña (La case in theﬁrst projects” (egMelonares dam)thathave been ciones deLinceIbéricoenAndalucía“,LIFEO2/ Lifecurrent project „Recuperación delaspobla de Andalucía)asoneofthecandidates areas ofSpanishdamsas“environmental construction the Regional Administration of Andalucia (Junta the Regional ofAndalucia(Junta Administration fundingthrough theERDFfunds.Infacttant the province ofCordoba) have received impor oftheIberian oftheterritory the fragmentation nuneo Ufunds EU of Inﬂuence about and theprovision from theEuropean fundsis accused by on NGOsofhaving negative effects lynx, LaBreña IIDamandArenoso Dam(bothin for thereintroduction ofIberianlynxinthenew species andhabitats. 29,998,625.Thiscaseisspeciallyrelevant € 30 million (with a request to 30million(witharequest theEuro € 159,757,002. Inthesecondcase € € to slow down. Andújar, Sierra Spain. 79,878,501 ofatotal 3,900,000). € 11 million).The Road sign alerting drivers Road signalerting € € 59,997,251 9,285,000 - - - -

Although theEbro transfer willnotgoahead, Adequate enforcement oftheEUnature and European Funds. Theenvironmental impact of European funds. EU Directives Directive) (such astheHabitats Spain continues to build dams with support from Spain continuesto builddamswithsupport water protection Directives, goodenvironmental oftheIberianLynx.with thelong-term survival values, and sustainable development.values, andsustainable many perceived ofthese damsisstill asnega impact assessments,andapoliticalcommitment projects do not compromise nature conservation projects donotcompromise nature conservation ble to projects thatwillleadto breaches ofother needs, alternatives andimpact assessments,and It appears that the current modelofinfrastruc thatthecurrent It appears ensure that its survival isnotthreatened by infra ensure thatitssurvival continue to ofthelynx,to monitor thestatus could assist in ensuring that future construction inensuringthatfuture construction could assist to change. The European Community should to change.TheEuropean Community ifthingsare to save thelynxwillallbenecessary ture development inlynxareas isnotcompatible tive by NGOs.Transparent andcomprehensive an assurancethatEUfundswillnotbeaccessi Possible alternatives/solutions structure, especially where this is supported by especiallywhere thisissupported structure, - - - © Gerald Dick - Yorgos Iliopoulos( • Spyros Psaroudas ( • Yorgos ( Mertzanis • • • Case Study 3 Greece Greece. Cohesion Fund, ERDF, Trans European Net Potential/effective ofBrown fragmentation Bear LIFE-Nature Country &Region Country works fund(TENS-T), DG-Regional Development, habitat, impact onBrownhabitat, Bearpopulationsin Brown Bears andtheEgnatiaHighway Bears Brown Main effects involved:Funding instrument(s) Further information/references Further www.callisto.g www.egnatia.g Nature Conservation Society) Conservation Nature Society) Conservation Nature Society) Conservation Nature (in Greek) r r /egnatia%20odos.htm

Callisto Callisto Callisto –Wildlife and –Wildlife and –Wildlife and

- GR/01080) suggested changesto thealignment 800,000 km²(outsideRussia) (LCIE, undated). Egnatia Highway Bears have alow reproductiveBears rate andare vul Russia) whichoccurwithinanarea ofaround inEurope isabout14,000Bears (outside throughout originallyoccurred Brown Bears LIFE-Nature projectLIFE-Nature ofEnvironment, Physical Planning Ministry of a particular segmentofthehighway,of aparticular cutting vation inGreece were presented to theHellenic nerable to human-related mortality. They require nerable to human-related mortality. areas ashumanpopulationsexpandedmost mainland Europe. They have disappeared from undated). causedby highways andrailnetworks mortality nti otx,ptnilcnit ewe the between In thiscontext, potential conflicts changes in land use. Habitat fragmentation, par fragmentation, changes inlanduse.Habitat ordc oflc ihbears. with to reduce conflict bearrange,inorder through Pindosmountains isamajorthreatthroughout in bearhabitat ture development, presents seriousproblems infrastruc asaresult oftransportation ticularly agriculture. Today thetotal numberofBrown wasand habitat destroyed by deforestation and and PublicWorks in1994. inthe Thepartners Background large habitats thatmakelarge habitats themvulnerableto for aspeciesrequiring suchlarge areas. Bear some areas includingGreece andCroatia (LCIE project andbrown bear conser ARCTOS (LIFE93NAR/ - - - - 51

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 52 The subsequentenvironmental impact assess Council’s verdict was released in support ofthe Council’s verdict was released insupport Greek in1995. CounciloftheState In1997 the NGOs. The decision stated that“thealignment NGOs. Thedecisionstated (Arcturos, WWF-Greece andtheHellenicSoci (Arcturos, WWF-Greece habitat disruption and disturbance andtherefore anddisturbance disruption habitat andasaresult, three Greek NGOs partners, rate from thesuggestions ARCTOS project (EIA)forment study thehighway didnotincorpo ety for theProtectionety appealed to ofNature) the the onlyway isto bypass thesensitive area”. to bedecidedshouldcompletely avoid bear

© WWF/Fritz Pölking - - - Following thisdecision,anew EIAwas required of the35 km highway stretch (tunnels concerned was accepted by thecompetent authorities State bywas NGOs,but considered unsatisfactory still in 2000. preferred remained option closeto theoriginal results ofthiswere released in1999, butthe and bridges, viaducts and underpasses). This and bridges,viaductsunderpasses). ate mitigationmeasures covering about42.7% alignment –withtheadditionofmore appropri and contacted by authorities.The thestate Forest is an important habitat for Brown for habitat Bear.Forest isanimportant Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany. -

Trans European (Transport). Networks Inaddi oftheEgnatiaHighwayThe construction has 42.7% ofthehighway stretch (35 km) inquestion. Odos SA (the company supervising thecon Odos SA (thecompany supervising Union throughUnion theCohesion Fund, ERDF, and LIFE projects inthearea, andhave beenusedto Public Works), andtheEuropean Commission Brown BearbutWolf, Ungulates andAvifauna as of accompanying Itiscurrently infrastructure. (DG-Regio). ofEnvironment, Planningand (Hellenic Ministry well. Co-fundingcamefrom nationalauthorities measures willbeaccepted by EgnatiaOdosSA unclear whethertheseadditionalmitigation provide mitigationofmore total than effective reviewed EIAstudy. Thenew measures would further/ad project were released, andsupport provisions. speciesincludednotonly Thetarget monitoring andevaluation project inorder to mission. Asaresult ofdiscussions,asix-year positive side, European funds have supported positive side,European fundshave supported theproject. Onthe ment Bankhave supported received 50%ofitsfundingfrom theEuropean In additionthesewould includemodifications the of phase first the of In 2005,thefindings In 2000and2001, NGOscontinuedto pursue en h mato h iha eoeand andinoperationwas es during construction before highway the of impact the define contribute to thenew monitoring project. mitigationmeasuresexisting proposed by the the of improvements and ditional modifications tablished by NGOsincooperationwithEgnatia tablished ties, theCouncilofEurope andtheEUCom the issuewithbothGreek nationalauthori tion, theGreek government andEuropean Invest nuneo Ufunds EU of Influence and the state authorities. and thestate struction ofthehighway),struction conforming to theEIA ------h oflc lutae h retne o rigor for need urgent the illustrates The conflict This caseillustrates theway inwhichfundsap To date, theGreek authoritiesandEgnatiaOdos Thessaloniki, Greece. Conservation Society, 5 Nik. FokaGR-54621, st, Society, 5Nik. Conservation DG-Environment supported aLIFEproject aimed DG-Environment supported NGOs andtheCommission’s DG-Environment Brown Bearpopulation.Jointpressure from Egnatia highway continues,assisted by Euro ous environmental impact assessmentsunder obtained from obtained SA have to appeared reluctant take upsugges plied by oftheEuropean one “arm” Commission proposals. has ledto improvements beingmadeto the numbers inGreece, the project willnothavenumbers pean regional development funds.Iftheproject ofthe making process aswell. Construction principle andacleartransparent decision- In thiscase,DG-Regional Development financial Information was inthiscasestudy largely can actcounter to theinterests ofanother“arm”. development. eventually contributes to adeclineinBrown Bear to have anegative while impact onbrown bears, tions madeby NGOsfor protection ofGreece’s the SEA(Strategic Environmental Assessment) at preserving the same bears. thesamebears. at preserving Possible alternatives/solutions Key sources: information ly supported ahighway project thatispredictedly supported ufildtessanblt betv fregional of objective sustainability the fulfilled Callisto Wildlife andNature - - - - - 53

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 54 WWF/MedPO2005.Riskonlocalfish • WWF2004. Tuna intheMediterranean: the • Carol Phua(WWFEuropean Policy Office) • RaúlGarcia (WWF-Spain) • Case Study 4: Financial Instrument forFinancial Instrument FisheriesGuidance Mediterranean countries,includingFrance, Spain, Greece, Italy, Cyprus. Malta, &Region Country Subsidies for andfor tunafarmers boatmod encouraged development of the industry. encouraged development oftheindustry. have and ernisation increased catching capacity Fisheries fundsandTuna farming Further information/references Further Main effects involvedFunding instrument(s) WWF-Spain. lenTn tc tsae WWF/MedPO, stake. at stock Tuna Bluefin ing industry intheMediterranean. ing industry farm tuna the by feed fish use ofimported posedbypopulations andecosystems the

- - The last assessment of the conservation sta assessmentoftheconservation The last ( Tuna The Bluefin This was 23%higherthanthemaximumlevel that The SCRSconcludedthatunderprevailing Atlantic (includingtheMediterranean)Atlantic andthe Conservation of Atlantic Tuna ofAtlantic Conservation (ICCAT) in2002. sigcniin,“urn ac eescan levels catch “current conditions, fishing aic tcnmaueoe ersi length in metres 3 over measure can It Pacific. Despite the concerns in the SCRS report, the Despite intheSCRSreport, theconcerns of this quota wasof thisquota allocated to theEU. Standing Committee onResearchStanding andStatistics (SCRS) oftheInternational Commissionfor the were particularly concerned about the “abrupt” aboutthe“abrupt” concerned were particularly a ensiniclyietfid oeta half than More identified. had beenscientifically 1994. since increase incatches oflarge fish inthelongterm”. Scientists not besustainable ICCAT meetinginBilbao2002adopted aquo crustaceans. u fteBufi uawscridotb the by out carried was Tuna tus oftheBluefin ta of32,000tonnesta for 2003–2006. theyears o rdtrta ed nfih qi and squid a top predator thatfeeds onfish, is Tuna and weigh more than650 kg. Bluefin Background oglvdplgcfihseisfudi the in found species long-lived pelagicfish Thunnus thynnus ) isalarge, - - - Tuna boatwithfeedfish. farming Complicating quota management,isthepractice Complicating quota re oipoeteolqaiyi h ehto order to intheflesh improve theoilquality of tuna“farming” intheMediterranean. This ats otn svr o,mkn hsawasteful a this practice. making low, very is tuna to baitfish information indicates rate thattheconversion of aroundperiod lasts 6–7months,duringwhich meet Japanesemarket Thefattening standards. isbasedonwildtunathatare caught industry ietecgdtn r e nbifih Available time thecagedtunaare fed onbaitfish. transferred to penswhere they are fattened in alive through purse seining.Thetunaarealive then through purse

© WWF-Canon / Hélène Petit The effects oftunafarming haveThe effects created con Tuna farming has been implicated in problems uapresiefihr Fec)i h tatcOcean. Atlantic the in (French) Tuna fishery purse-seine WWF is also concerned withregardWWF isalsoconcerned to therisk it ewe oa semncmuiisand fishermen/communities local between flicts September 1998. Players fromPlayers many Mediterranean countriesare Mediterranean. Lack of accurate catch figures ihrlaiiyo uafihn ttsisi the in statistics with reliability of tuna fishing involved including inthetunafarming industry, include the destruction of include thedestruction intheMediterranean. Otherimpacts ing industry farm tuna the by feed fish by theuseofimported ments and then set catch quotas to keep the fish Italy, andSpain.Someofthesecountries Malta cages, including effects inprotectedcages, includingeffects areas. withinery sustainable limits. There appears to be compromises the to effort out carry stock assess tuna farmers incountriessuchasSpain,Croatiatuna farmers posed ecosystems and populations to localfish that are transhipped after catch between vessels suchfarms.than inactuallyrunning r novda upir ffiht am,rather farms, to are involved offish assuppliers and Malta. and farms whose nationalities are different. fish of inclusion statistical with issue a specific six EU Member States: Cyprus, Greece, France, Cyprus, six EUMemberStates:

- - - - 55

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 56 According to more recent information onlyaidfor by Advanced TunaA report RanchingTechnolo € et.Ti a ule optto between competition fuelled has This fleets. rnhpresiesfle eea ol reach would renewal fleet French seiners purse However, WWFestimated in2004 thatatleast Even cases,theinformation inthebest isscat European fundshave contributed to themoderni mated thatUS$34millionhasbeen distributed research, etc. processing,modernisation, buildingcoldstores, provide asubsidyofupto 75%of thetotal cost, negative socialimplications for traditionalfishers. with andtraditionallongliners seiners purse Identifying andquantifyingtheexact contribu In addition,fundsfrom theFIFGhave beenused gies (ATRT 2004, available from WWF)esti Fisherman withcaughtYellowFisherman FinTuna ( to France, Greece, Italy, andSpainsince1997. process. to tered, badlyelaborated anddifficult tions oftheFIFGto tunafarming isdifficult. tunafarming. Thefundcan to directly support nuneo Ufunds EU of Influence another allocated to tunafarming since2000. aimed atincreasing ofaquaculture capacity, sation oftheFrench seine and Spanishpurse 19–20 millionofEuropean fundshadbeen © WWF / Ezequiel Nnavío € 20–25million. Germa albacora Germa ) in the enclosures of a marine farm in the Canary Islands,Spain. intheCanary ) intheenclosures ofamarinefarm - - - - - The reliance oftunafarming oncapture fisher Reform oftheFIFGhasledto theeliminationof EFF. Maintenance ofsubsidies to tunafarmers n u usde htpooeoefihn or ing outsubsidiesthatpromote overfishing phas – reform aidsto ofstructural fisheries for tuna ies shouldnotbeignored, andsupport foris unlikely boatbuilding to allow support be theEuropean FisheriesFund. Thisinstrument destructive practices. destructive appears to violateappears the theprincipleunderlining activities. Possible alternatives/solutions funding instrument thatwillreplace theFIFGwill funding instrument farming shouldberemoved from provisions to usde o etrnwlatr20.Tenew The 2004. after renewal subsidies for fleet support aquaculture activitiesunderthenew support - - • • (CEEBankwatch Cyglicki Network) Robert • Chylarecki Przemek (OTOP –BirdLife • (WWF-Poland) MajkaWisniewska Marta • Via Baltica and Natura 2000 BalticaandNatura Via TENs-Transport Case Study 5 Poland, Podlasie Region Potential onsites negative designated effects as Country &Region Country part of the Natura 2000network. oftheNatura part Main effects involvedFunding instrument(s) Further information/reference Further www.bankwatch.org http://conventions.coe.int in Poland)

• • The construction ofthePolishThe construction sectionofthe There is at least one viablealternativeThere isatleast route The sites by thatcouldbeaffected the 2000 network (areas meettherequirements of Baltica Helsinki, and is part ofTrans-EuropeanHelsinki, andispart Corridor NGOs are concerned that local political support thatlocalpoliticalsupport NGOs are concerned Lomza town andavoid sites. theNatura However, SACs). In addition, the route would cut important SACs). Inaddition,theroute would cutimportant will threaten four important bird areas (IBAs) will threaten four important migratory corridors for corridors large mammals,espe migratory in 2004. Theroad isto from run Warsaw to include: I whichwillconnectthecountriesofsouth cially lynxandwolf. routeconsider thatitscurrent through Bialystok andwesternern Europe withFinland.NGOs conservation obligations. conservation that have been designated as part of the Natura oftheNatura that have beendesignated aspart Background for alternative the Bialystok willoverrule Poland’s for the The Augustowska Forest andthe Forest The Augustowska The BiebrzaMarshes: one of the largest and most important natu important andmost one ofthelargest primeval forest. in Europe, andmany features ofcontinental ral peatlandsinCentralEurope. cant breeding populationsofbird species that have unfavourable conservation status that havestatus unfavourable conservation land’s largest national park, andprotects land’s nationalpark, largest Knyszynska Forests , anew international expressway, began Via Baltica , whichwould passthrough : bothhave signiﬁ thissite isPo Via Baltica - - - Via - -

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 58 The 30 priority projects). To30 priority date, noEUfundshave General view over the north-middle part of the Biebrza Marshes inspring. Poland. Marshes oftheBiebrza part General view over thenorth-middle nlsdb h n f20.Hwvr projects However, 2006. of end the by finalised Europe, thePolish authorities(GeneralDirecto Following arecommendation from theCouncilof of theproposed route. Thisshouldconsiderall out onfor individualprojects, asthey donot of theenvironment assessmentsbeingcarried works for Transportation thatisbeing promoted will beconsidered intheSEA. route via Bialystok, buttheWorldroute viaBialystok, Bankisreport been allocated for ofthe construction by of theEU(thoughnotoneofpresent list route. abouttheadequacy NGOsare concerned possible alternatives inorder to minimisethede of rate for Ministry PublicRoads andMotorways, Infrastructure) haveInfrastructure) issuedatender to undertake consider theoverall cumulative impacts. Inad dysrosycnieigfiacn h project, the edly seriouslyconsideringfinancing thattheupgradesmaydition, there isconcern tions of the existing roadtions oftheexisting alongtheBialystok terioration ofnaturalareas. TheSEAshouldbe nuneo Ufunds EU of Influence and World Bankfundshave already beenused to upgradesomesec are underway currently a fullStrategic Environmental Assessment(SEA) foreclose real that considerationoftheoptions © WWF-Canon/Fred F. Hazelhoff Via Baltica is part oftheTrans-European ispart Net Via Baltica - - - - -

- At least oneviablealternative least At route for the Baltica Bank could also be used. EU support through Bank couldalsobeused.EUsupport Recommendation 108 No. (2003)Construction BirdLife International, OTOP, RSPB,WWF-Po of the vention. T-PVS/Files (2005)7. conservation nature would avoid allsignificant by NGOsto theCouncilofEurope/Berne Con coe.int the PHAREprogramme beingused iscurrently tok route. Funds from theEuropean Investment to upgradeanalternative route for the and EUfundshasbeenusedto develop other Key reference Possible alternatives/solutions land and CEE Bankwatch (2005): Follow-up land andCEEBankwatch (2005):Follow-up for works onsomesmallsectionsoftheBialys sites. sections oftheroad. / exists, andcouldbeused.Thealternative exists, Via Baltica Expressway inPoland. Report http://conventions. Via Baltica Via - - - , WWF2005.TheDanube–alifeline orjust • WWF2002.Waterway Transport onEu • Bratrich(WWFDanube Christine • UlrichEichelmann(WWF-Austria) • TENS-T, andpossibleinvolvement ofCohesion All Member States neighbouringtheDanube(10All MemberStates (hydromorphological Alteration ofriver flow Case Study 6 Fund Funds andStructural Country &Region Country ing, canalisation,dammingetc. countries, 2850 km ofriver) alteration) could affect biodiversity through flood biodiversity alteration) couldaffect Navigation on the Danube and Natura 2000 ontheDanubeandNatura Navigation Main effects involvedFunding instrument(s) Further information/references Further Carpathian Programme)Carpathian on inlandnavigation ontheDanube(draft) rope’s Lifeline, theDanube(Vienna) a navigation corridor? WWFPositiona navigation corridor? Paper

- - TEN corridor VII. TEN corridor ecologi outstanding retains The Danubestill The Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube Inland waterway The Rhine/Meuse-Main-DanubeInlandwaterway At thesametimeDanubeisoneofmajor At paetyteeaecnitn betvs in Apparently objectives, these are conflicting Beaver ( NGOs are that a piecemeal approachconcerned 2004 in rules Network’s guidelines andfinancial vr10dfeettpso s,aogthem among over 100 offish, types different CC20b.Seicscin aebe iden been have sections (CEC 2005b).Specific ilafc odlisadafc pce uhas such species affect and floodplains will affect rare speciesare theWhite Pelican ( many including casesuniquebiologicaldiversity, projects ontheDanube,where amore holistic is beingtaken to assesspotential impacts of many bird speciesthatutilisetheDanube. Trans-European the of revision the in identified reserves and two World Heritage sites. According national parks, 11 Ramsar sites plus biosphere onocrotalus cal qualities.Theriver ishometo arichandin canalisation anddamming(to increase depth) existing or possible Natura 2000 sites. same the of gation, many and WWF has identified the major waterways in Europe and part ofthe inEurope andpart the majorwaterways inEurope. Itisalsooneof waterways transport the White-tailed Eagle( the Beluga Sturgeon ( the BelugaSturgeon feared is it suchasdredging, riverthat adaptations training, and action, for areas priority as tified to the EU more than 65% of these bottlenecks are the TENs Danube project – the EU has identified approach ismore appropriate. projects thatwere axis isoneofthe30priority areas as ecological hotspots, including three Background six endangeredOther speciesofsturgeon. stretches of the Danube as “bottlenecks” for navi Castor fiber Castor ), theDalmatianPelican ( ) andtheOtter ( Huso huso Haliaaetus albicilla ) alongwiththe Lutra lutra P. crispus Pelecanus ), the - ) etc. ), - - 59

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 60 1. The mainhydromorphological driving force is The expected private sector contributionis20% TENs proposal isaround The estimated amountofinvestment required to According to the 4. WWF andotherNGOsconsiderthattheresult Directive dueto hydromorphological alterations. Danube (86%) are “at risk” or “possibly at risk” of of thebudget,withremainder financed of which of efforts to promote navigation ontheDanube of efforts 2. 3. navigation ontheDanubeRiver. damagetohas ledto theecological substantial perspective. new financial between theCouncilandParliament onthe budget. Thesize oftheTENS-T isdependenton by nationalgovernments, andtheCommunity International Commissionfor theProtection of carry out the 30 priority projects includedinthe outthe30priority carry quality and the integrity oftheriver withoutsub andtheintegrity quality and hotspotslikely to beaffected the Danube River (ICPDR), large parts ofthe the DanubeRiver (ICPDR),large parts the outcome oftheoverall budgetnegotiations nuneo Ufunds EU of Influence Ecologically outstanding river stretchesEcologically outstanding failing theobjectives oftheEUWater Framework stantial positive effects on waterway transport. onwaterway positive effects stantial by TENS-T navigation Straubing /D –Vilshofen IslandsandIpoly National Park /H Wachau /A Donau Auen Nationalpark /A € 80billionwillbeneededby 2006. Roof Report 2004 Roof Report € 225billionby 2020,

7. 6. 8. 5. Calarasi –Braila /RO Danube Islands / BG, RO Danube Islands/BG, ofthe Danube Delta –Bystroye DanubeDelta canal/UA Kopacki Rit/H,HR,SCG - There isastrongneedfor a“DanubeMasterplan” h urn eto h auei vrg is average in Danube the on fleet The current Assessment (SEA). cetfegttransport. freight ficient Danube thatlooksatthewholeriver basin,inthe Firstly, NGOs are callingfor astrategy for the Habitats Directive.Habitats Birds Directives. Thisshouldincludeimpact of transport (preferably rail)are required forof transport ef achanceto introduce state-of-the-art offers Secondly, the necessary upgradeofthefleet Secondly, thenecessary ment of multi-modal logistical infrastructure infrastructure ment ofmulti-modallogistical ments incombinationwithbetter forecasting reduced emissions,lesswastewater produced). be aDanubewideStrategic Environmental needs. Theappropriate tool for thisplancould It isbetter to theshipsto adjust theriver explored. Inaddition,development andimprove regarding waterquality levels shouldalsobe than viceversa! to transfer goodsfrom shipsto othermodes technology (egshallow draughtinlandvessels, that includesbothecologicalandtransportation about 30 years old.Improvedabout 30years navigation instru 6ofthe assessments asrequired underArticle Possible alternatives/solutions fully with the requirements of the Habitats and fully withtherequirements oftheHabitats funded underTENS-T are required to comply spirit oftheWater Framework Directive (WFD). should bepromoted. Adequate centers harbour

It is vital thatdevelopmentsIt isvital

- - - • • • Pedro Beja (ERENA) • Alcazar(LPN) Rita • Case Study 7 Cohesion fund,CAP, Funds Structural Odelouca Dam and the Monichique Natura 2000site Natura Odelouca DamandtheMonichique Portugal, WesternPortugal, Algarve 2000site, Flooding ofNatura fragmentation of habitat forof habitat IberianLynx, on negative effects Country &Region Country valuable habitats. CAP support for unsustainable valuable CAP habitats. support irrigation practicesdrivingdamconstruction. irrigation nei s n idseis etuto of Destruction species. bird and endemic ﬁsh Main effects involved:Funding instrument(s) Further information/references Further www.panda,org/mediterranean www.lpn.p Francesca Antonelli (WWF Mediterranean Programme) t

The Monichiquesite, together withtheneigh The former smallrange, two specieshave avery The damispredicted to have severe impacts on s pce nteAaebsn seilyen especially basin, Arade the in species fish otglsilhligasfcetylreextent large holdingasufficiently still Portugal construction authoritiesstarted Portuguese of habitat forof habitat ofaviableIberian Lynx persistence of theOdeloucadamin2002.Thesite for the of Monichiqueto holdaviablelynxpopulationin of Monichiqueto Portugal thoseofsoutheast linkingthelynxpopulations only known corridor will submerge over 20kilometres oftheOde alyt efloe od oeo h etlynx best the of some holds valley to beflooded toma lusitanicum bouring Natura 2000 sites of Costa Sudoeste 2000sites bouring Natura ofCosta region. When Algarve ra 2000site inPortugal’s proposed damiswithintheMonichiqueNatu potential effects on potential effects atMonichique),thedamwilldestroyhabitat the (the population. Besidesreducing lynxhabitat complete, thedamwillbe73metres high,and demic cyprinidspecies.LPN(2004) highlighted the longterm. and Caldeirão,isoneofthefew regions in as they are exclusive endemicsinsmallbasins and Spain.Thismay compromise thecapacity Background louca river site. insidetheNatura south-western Portugal. , and Leuciscus aradensis Barbus sclateriBarbus in particular. , Chondos - - - - - 61

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 62 The dam would be part oftheOdelouca-Funcho The damwould bepart The area where thedamwillbebuiltisimportant of irrigation, using EU Structural funds. usingEUStructural of irrigation, ( water NGOsconsider to thewestern Algarve. andfeed nesting will destroy several important public consumption and irrigation, asitwillbe public consumptionandirrigation, hydraulic whichisdesigned to system, supply includes several andspeciesthatare habitats holds ing areas. Thevalley thatwillbeflooded that water from thedamwillbeusedfor both to several bird species,includingBonelli’s Eagle a high quality tractofriparianwoodland and a highquality linked to two otherdamsbuiltfor thepurposes listed Directive. intheannexes oftheHabitats Hieraaetus fasciatus ). Construction ofthedam ). Construction hre re nbrtfrs 20 rs,Mnciu,Agrergo,Portugal. region, Algarve Monichique, Charred (2003fires), trees forest inburnt - Water Framework Directive (WFD) thatrequires NGOs have been stronglyopposedto the violation ofEuropean law. ing habitats &species)andchemicalcondi ing habitats been found to Direc beinbreach oftheHabitats use ofEuropean fundsfor theproject, asithas decided to continueto buildthedamdespite its oftheOdeloucadamsincefirst construction tions. However, government has thePortuguese that river basinsare ingoodecological(includ tive. Since2000thedamwould alsoinfringethe stages oftheproposal. TheEUhassuspended stages - -

- WWF-Canon / Sebatian Rich/Hungry Eye Images According to ofthe LPN(2004), construction 05 irsfreseetsgicn pressure significant exert farmers 2005, citrus Odelouca damhaslargely beendriven by theac Funcho suchaspipelines– system, irrigation However, theCohesionFund hasbeenusedto European fundinghasbeenusedto directly fund EU’s Cohesionfund.However, thisfundingwas of theproject. NGOshave beencriticalofthis on sustainable useofwater.on sustainable isnotcontingent organic farming). Thissupport on water theirorchards. resources to preserve Some citrus farmers in the Algarve are eligible intheAlgarve farmers Some citrus populations, theEuropean Commissionhasnot impact ofthefullproject. Directivebreach oftheHabitats in2001, andno atclrysgicn.Drn r er,sc as such years, dry During significant. particularly isthereal reason for dam in thewestern Algarve recognized thisargument asareal need.LPN In the Algarve region, support for is citrus region, support In theAlgarve Initially, government applied thePortuguese utfido h ai fspligwtrt urban to water supplying of basis the on justified construction ofthedam. construction construction. construction. thatthedesire to considers increase irrigation tion ofCAP subsidiesthatencourageunsustain thus creating facts to argue for thecontinuation nuneo Ufunds EU of Influence able irrigation. Although construction hasbeen Althoughconstruction able irrigation. a project are fundedwithoutassessmentofthe approach, where interdependent aspectsof for fundingfor theOdeloucadamthrough the for agri-environment support (such as support to (suchassupport for agri-environment support fund someothercomponents oftheOdelouca- suspended whentheproject was found to bein Spanish Imperial Eagle( Aquila adalberti Aquila - - ). The Commissionshouldensure thatthedam The European Commissionhasalready found CAP subsidiesshouldnotbeusedto sup Greenbelt casestudy. Natura 2000site.Natura European fundsshouldnotbe Erena andWWF(2005)Implications ofEU LPN (2004) Fact sheetfor CAP reform. Case (in a reasoned opinion) that construction ofthe (in areasoned opinion)thatconstruction water resources. Inparticular, agri-environment would infringe theWater Framework Directive. port systems that require unsustainable useof thatrequire systems unsustainable port is notcompleted attheexpense ofavaluable in minimisingwater consumptionandavoiding Information was inthiscasestudy largely ob dam is in breach of the Habitats Directivedam isinbreach oftheHabitats and contamination ofvaluablecontamination aquifers. case, fundsshouldbeappliedto helpfarmers that are harmful tothat are harmful Inthis thewiderecosystem. tained from: LigaparaaProtecçãotained daNatureza: able projects. aspectsoflarger,applied to support unsustain Possible alternatives/solutions Key sources: information freshwater ecosystems in southern Portugal: the freshwater Portugal: insouthern ecosystems spending shouldnotbeappliedto systems subsidies and policies to the conservation of subsidies andpoliciesto theconservation for OdeloucaDam; andfromstudy Portugal:

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 64 Beaufoy 2005.Europe’s Living • useofwater Schmidt2005.Sustainable • Schmidt2004. Saving Water by changing • ThomasNielsen • GuidoSchmidt(WWF-Spain) • Case Study 8 Reduction of competitiveness of dryland areas Reduction ofcompetitiveness ofdryland EAGGF, Funds, Structural CohesionFund Spain, especiallyExtremadura &Region Country biodiversity andincreased riskofdesertiﬁcation. biodiversity and Guadalquivirbasin and subsequentabandonmentleadsto reduced Biodiversity andirrigation Biodiversity Further information/references Further Main effects involvedFunding instrument(s) Countryside Spain. Countryside CAP, Palermo Workshop. (WWF European Policy Ofﬁce) resources inagriculture: WWFproposals for thePAC reform inSpain.

14.5% ofuseableagriculturalland,andirrigation The measure doesnotaimto achieve overall Currently, development themainrural measure Many projects irrigation have had direct impacts on naturalvalues. For ofbird example, studies Spanish agriculture isnow heavily reliant on (WWF/Adena 2005). (Dwyer etal2000).WWFhave criticisedagri (see Dwyer etal2000). naumanni water (WWF2005d). water usedto savings enlarge are irrigation often marginal areas, andadvancing desertification represented 80%oftotal water demandinSpain rigation covered some3.7millionha.Thiswas In1999,irrigation. thelandcultivated by ir ing irrigation infrastructure ofdamsandcanals infrastructure ing irrigation species.TheLesserKestrel ( important populations inSpainhave shown thattheconver reductions inwater use(Beaufoy 2005),andany in Spainisfor andfor new irrigation, increasing consumption ofwater, andother pesticides cultural policyinSpain,claimingthatithasled grown and also by withirrigation the accompany adalberti to anincrease inintensive farming withahigh h fcec fwtruei urn irrigation. current in use water of the efficiency agricultural inputs, abandonmentoffarming in areas, orto cultivate crops thatconsumemore Background infiatfco fetn elnsi some in declines affecting factor significant sion oflandby introducing isthemost irrigation ) are by affected bothchangesincrops ), andSpanishImperial Eagle( Falco Aquila - - - - of water for useinagriculture. Salinisationof (such as coastal areas) anddonothave(such ascoastal apos itive impact in dryland areas. Infact, irrigation itive impact indryland ues). However, schemes inoperation,irrigation in somecasesonthegrounds thatthey will ninsula, and is a Natura 2000andRamsarsite.ninsula, andisaNatura reduced insize abstraction dueto unsustainable inappropriate agriculture. agriculture areas by supporting ness ofdryland Irrigation ofcropsIrrigation has beenblamedfor degrada Investments have inirrigation beenjustified hne nvgtto,icuigpa rs and includingpeatfires, changes invegetation, water in hasalsooccurred, cation ofsurface groundwater andeutrophi andcontamination duced competitiveness leadsto abandonmentof elsewhere (Beaufoy 2005).Eventually, this re Hydrological worksonecologicalcompensation measures, Melonares, Spain. the most important wetlands ontheIberian Pe important the most tilla LaMancha,Spain).Thewetland hasbeen tion oftheTablas deDaimiel addition to areas areduction dueto innesting concentrated inmoreare “dynamic” areas often val biodiversity abandonment (whichcanharm land subsidence (EEA 2003). The park isoneof land subsidence(EEA2003). Thepark Athirdland andreducedofSpain’s biodiversity. schemes canreduce therelative competitive populations andthusprevent rural land stabilise ufc sfcn eetfiain fe u to due often isfacing desertification, surface © WWF-Spain/Guido Schmidt

National ParkNational (Cas ------The CAP iswidelyrecognised asoneofthe of many agricultural commoditieshave been when it occurs inareas thatare facingwhen itoccurs water water consumptioninseveral ways: by differen believes, thissituationisespeciallyproblematic Europe. in land-use of drivers significant most In the past, CAPIn thepast, payments to theproducers crops, by investing into by systems, irrigation not directly linked to production. TheCAP drives the export ofover-production inEurope.the export WWF tiating subsidiesfor irrigated andnon-irrigated nuneo Ufunds EU of Influence applying compulsory water asabasis standards applying compulsory o A usde,adfial ysubsidising by for CAP subsidies,andfinally scarcity inEurope (Schmidt2004). scarcity - 65

CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES 66 The olive grove, traditionally a rainfed crop, has The complexities of the issues surrounding € 60% ofthepayment willcontinue to bepaidon xn ihpyet otoepoueswho, producers those to payments high fixing During the last forty years irrigation systems systems irrigation years forty During thelast of Córdoba and Jaén producing 40% of world olive production. 40%ofthe payment isnow to olive represents onlyanincrease ofincome be distributed according to social,culturalor investedin thepast, into intensively irrigated production ofolives Althoughtheolive intheEU. increased by 600%by CAP aids.Itshouldbe between ofbenefits means thatthedifference betweenproduced, farming thedifference with perkg ofolive production. Indeedwithasupport is to to befound intheprevious CAP support intensive farming (4500 withoutirrigation kg/ha) investments. Theinterest isbarely ofirrigation ing inspite involved ofthegreat costs insuch have beenheavily developed withinolive farm urban areas in the basin (WWF 2005e). irrigation consumes twice as much water as the become the major water consumer in the Guad have encouraged the introduction of irrigation net income between irrigated and dryland planta production. Traditionally, olive farming has been producer of olives in the world, with the regions In fact thereal reason for development irrigation ence of2000 kg/ha regarding to thepriceof explained ofyieldbetween by the difference carried out without irrigation, but differential CAP environmental priorities–withintheolive sector; ob endb ahMme State. Member each by to be defined the samebasisaspriorto thereform, basically taken into accountthatthere isalready anover ofproduction forthese two types thefarmer tions by as much as 600%) for irrigated crops the olive production industry. Spain is the largest and without irrigation shifted to shifted and withoutirrigation (6500 and withirrigation kg/ha). Butthisdiffer alquivir basin (WWF/Adena 2005), and now olive agricultural payments are illustrated in the case of subsidies regime was reformed in2005, earlier systems in many plantations (Beaufoy 2001). subsidies (subsidies increased the difference in 90/ha under irrigation. 90/haunderirrigation. € 530/ha.This - - - - - • investments in infrastructure, eg plastics investments egplastics in infrastructure, • withmarketing assistance andpromotion; • trainingfor farmers; • Another Spanishcrop whichisheavily depend 2005a). 2004). NGOs have generallyagreed thatdecouplingis Pillar Onepayments undertheCAP have now NGOs of having negative effects on species and Melonares dam) that have been accused by Spanish dams as “environmental projects” (eg Strawberry production does not receive any direct because of pesticides and irrigation systems. systems. andirrigation because ofpesticides andquantity watering practicesaffect quality traditionalgrowers. ment) measures to support low of intensity, highnature valueasgrow plantations favour in support of shift in asufficient by Beaufoymade. Analysis (2004) indicated that decoupledfrom pro been completely orpartially rious questions have been raised about whether habitats (see, eg case study 2). In some cases se Struc European the under measures financed helped by rural development measures such as: payment support from the CAP. However, it is is in Europe andofinternational importance, Park’sing, asthedownstream DoñanaNational Illegal boreholes have beendeveloped inorder In order to provide water for irrigation, the Cohe In additiondevelopment ofroads andother ent on irrigation is strawberries. Strawberry farm Strawberry isstrawberries. ent onirrigation bepaid60%oftheirformer willstill producers duction levels for products, most includingolives. growers (Schmidt 2004).growers to support thewater in demandsofstrawberries to support developthrough useofPillar2(rural effective tion-linked payments. couldbeimproved Matters the reforms inrelation to olives willnotresult tural Funds may provide to indirect assistance a positive step. progress Butthere isstill to be additional dams were in fact necessary (eg WWF aquifer, wetlands oneofthebiggest supporting southern Spain.Thiscaseisespecially worry southern sion Fund has contributed to the construction of severely by affected (Schmidt theseabstractions and irrigation systems. and irrigation ------Design of new rural developmentDesign ofnew rural programmes Reforms to theCAP are already underway. De pling for olive production (seediscussionabove). many commodities. However, additionalchanges been recognised asapositive step inrelation to rural developmentrural goals,given thesituationand and for bothnature conservation be apriority ment measures shouldthenbedesignedto areas. Agri-environ issuesinrural ronmental by acomprehensive ofthekey analysis envi dry cultivation should andreduction ofirrigation dry from production levels has coupling ofsupport Location ofplanneddam,Melonares, Spain. the environmental impacts oftheproduction of trends inwater availability. areas ofSpain,itseemsthatthepromotion of are needed, suchasthecompletion ofdecou Possible alternatives/solutions for the2007–2013 periodshouldbeinformed suit particular regional characteristics. Inmost suit particular © WWF-Spain/Guido Schmidt - - - - There ispotential for win-winsituationsinvolving 2005). Involving suchorganisations atanearly With very limited exceptions, environmental very With European institutions must clearly promote clearly European must institutions the NGOs have not beeninvolved inprogramming less far are measures prevention However, fire (WFD) andensure accomplishment ofitsgoals (Beaufoy 2005). ronmental improvementronmental regional andsustainable tool marginal uplandareas asafire-prevention operations. extinction usedforis currently fire money ERDF example, For ing otherbenefits. development. developing programmes thatcontribute to envi developed. Inparticular, there are nomeasures the 2007–2013 Spainin periodmightassist and developingtargets theprogrammes for to orpromote maintain extensive grazingin a way inthis. ofassisting application oftheWater Framework Directive for water sustainable basin management.Inclu for useofEuropean fundsinSpain(Beaufoy sion oftheWFDincross-compliance would be indesigningadequate andmeasurable stage schemes thatare provid nature friendlywhilst - - - 67

CASE STUDIES 68

6. REFERENCES

• Baldock, D., V. Swales, M. Farmer (2005) • CEC (2003a) European Commission, DG Summary paper for seminar on 11 March Regional Policy, Structural Policies and Eu- 2005: Seminar on the European Agricultural ropean territories. Competitiveness, sustain- Fund for Rural Development: Implications able development and cohesion in Europe for Forestry. www.ieep.org.uk/publications/ from Lisbon to Gothenburg. http://europa. pdfs/2005/eafrdforestryseminarfinalreport.pdf eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docge- • Beaufoy, G. (2000) The environmental im- ner/presenta/comp/comp_en.pdf pact of olive oil production in the European • CEC (2004a) European Commission, Union – practical options for improving the Biodiversity Loss: Facts and Figures. Press environmental impact. European Forum on release 09/02/04. MEM/04/27. Available Nature Conservation and Pastoralism and online at: Asociación para el Análisis y Reforma de la europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction. Política Agro-rural, available at: http://europa. do?reference=MEMO/04/ eu.int/comm/environment/agriculture 27&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&gu • Beaufoy, G. (2001) EU Policies for Olive iLanguage=en Farming – unsustainable on all counts. • CEC (2004b) European Commission, WWF/Birdlife International, Brussels. Financing Natura 2000, 14 July 2004. • Beaufoy G (2004) in “La Cañada, Newslet- (COM(2004)0431) ter of the European Forum on Nature Con- • CEC (2005) European Commission, DG servation and Pastoralism”. No 18 Spring/ Environment. Handbook for Environmental Summer 2004. www.efncp.org/pdf/canada18. Project Funding. pdf • CEC (2005a) DG Fisheries. The sea, a vital • Beaufoy, G. (2005) Europe’s Living Country- EU resource. Briefing for EU Maritime Strat- side. Spain (case study for Europe’s Living egy. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ Countryside – ELCo project). (in press). fisheries/maritime/fiche1_en.pdf • Birdlife International (2005) Socio-economic • CEC (2005b) DG Energy and Transport. benefits of protected sites – the EU Natura The trans-European transport network: the 2000 network. Birdlife International briefing. new priorities and financial rules. Updated Available online at www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/ version, 21 June 2005. natura_socio.pdf. • Conservation International (2005) Conser- • Birdlife International, OTOP, RSPB, WWF vation International website: www.biodiversity- Poland and CEE Bankwatch (2005) Fol- hotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/mediterranean/in- low-up Recommendation No. 108 (2003) dex.xml Construction of the Via Baltica Expressway • Delbaere, B.C.W. (ed.). (1998) Facts & in Poland. Report by NGOs. T-PVS/Files figures on Europe’s biodiversity – State (2005) 7. http://conventions.coe.int and trends 1998-1999. Tilburg, European • CEC (undated) European Commission, DG Centre for Nature Conservation Environment website. www.europa.eu.int/ • Donald, PF, G. Pisano, M. Rayment, DJ Pain comm/environment/nature/mission_state- (2002) The Common Agricultural Policy, EU ment/index_en.htm (accessed 26 October enlargement and the conservation of Eu- 2005). rope’s farmland birds. Agriculture, Ecosys- tems and the Environment 89: 167–182. 69

• Duke, Guy (ed.) (2005) Biodiversity and • IEEP (2004) Natura 2000 – A Safety the EU – Sustaining Life, Sustaining Liveli- Net for Europe’s Nature. Brussels in hoods. Conference Report. Stakeholder Brief. www.iucn.org/places/europe/rofe/ Conference held under the Irish Presidency documents/3IEEP%20insert%20for%20IUCN_ of The European Union in partnership with ROfE%20NewsletterVol4.pdf the European Commission, 25th–27th May • IEEP and GHK Consulting (2005) The En- 2004, Grand Hotel, Malahide, Ireland. vironmental Impacts of Trade Liberalisation • Dwyer, Baldock, Einschütz, Sumpsi, Varela- and Potential Flanking Measures. Stage I of Ortega and Caraveli (2000) The Environ- a report to Defra. mental Impacts of Irrigation in the European • IUCN (2001) SSC expertise called on for Union Study for DG Environment of the Eu- strategy to save Europe’s plants. www.iucn. ropean Commission, available on the Com- org/themes/ssc/news/plantstrategy.html mission website at www.europa.eu.int/comm/ • LCIE (undated) website: www.lcie.org environment/agriculture/studies.htm#study1 • Lee R. (2003) An analysis of the effects • EASAC (2005) A user’s guide to biodiver- of Structural Fund spending on the envi- sity indicators. Royal Society, London. www. ronment for the mid-term evaluation and easac.org/EASACBioindicator.pdf review of Structural Fund interventions • EEA (2003) Europe’s Environment: the third 2000–2006. Brussels, Belgium: Birdlife assessment. http://reports.eea.eu.int/envi- International European Community Ofﬁce. ronmental_assessment_report_2003_10/en/ • Liarikos K. (2004): Regional development tab_content_RLR and the environment: towards a sustainable • EEA (2004) Impacts of Europe’s changing development of Greece. WWF Greece climate. EEA Report No 2/2004. Copenha- policy paper, Athens (in Greek). gen. http://reports.eea.eu.int/climate_report_ • LPN (2004) Fact sheet for CAP reform. 2_2004/en/tab_abstract_RLR Case study for Portugal: Odelouca Dam. • EEA (2004a) EEA Signals 2004. Copenha- • Mace, G. (2005) Biodiversity. In: Conditions gen. www.eea.eu.int and Trends Assessment of the Millennium • EEA (2005) The European Environment. Ecosystem Assessment (Carpenter, S. & State and Outlook 2005. Copenhagen. Pingali, P. eds.). Island Press, Washington. • ENDS (2000) Massive anti-water transfer • Mansourian,S., Vallauri, D., Dudley, N., eds protest in Spain. ISSUE 849 – Monday 9 (in cooperation with WWF International) October 2000. www.environmentdaily.com 2005. Forest Restoration in Landscapes: • Erena and WWF (2005) Implications of EU Beyond planting trees, Springer, New York. subsidies and policies to the conservation • McAllister, D, John Craig, Nick Davidson, of freshwater ecosystems in southern Portu- Diane Murray and Mary Seddon. (2000) gal: the Greenbelt case study. Biodiversity impacts of large dams. Report • European Commission (2003) Competitive- for IUCN as contribution to the World ness, sustainable development and cohe- Commission on Dams. Available at: www. sion in Europe, from Lisbon to Gothenburg, wca-infonet.org/servlet/BinaryDownloaderSer Brussels. vlet?ﬁlename=1066734099866_biodiversity. • Haigh, N. (ed) (2001) Manual of Environ- pdf&refID=115470 mental Policy: The EU and Britain; IEEP, Elsevier Science. 70

• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) • Schmidt, G. (2005) Sustainable use of wa- Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodi- ter resources in agriculture: WWF propos- versity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, als for the PAC reform in Spain. Washington, DC. • Ten Brink, P.; Monkhouse, C.; Richartz, S • Nagy, S. and Crockford, N. (2004) Imple- (2002) Promoting the Socio-Economic Ben- mentation in the European Union of spe- efits of Natura 2000. London: IEEP cies action plans for 23 of Europe’s most • Tockner, K. & Standford, J.A. (2002) Riv- threatened birds. Report to the European erine floodplains: present state and future Commission Contract No B4-3040/2003/ trend. Environmental Conservation 29, 362169/MAR/BZ. Available at http://europa. 308–330. eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_con- • Vera, F.W.M. (ed). (2000) Grazing Ecology servation/focus_wild_birds/species_birds_di- and Forest History. Oxford, Cabi Publishing rective/pdf/action_plans_review_final.pdf • Working Group on Article 8 of the Habitats • OECD (2004) Analysis of the 2003 Directive (2002) Final Report on Financing CAP Reform. Available at: www.oecd.org/ Natura 2000. dataoecd/62/42/32039793.pdf • WWF (undated) European Fishing. Subsi- • Oliveira, Rosario & Luis Palma (2003) The dies and Marine Environment: Case of Fish- Southern Portugal Green Belt – Forest ing Sector from Spain. Landscape Restoration. Publication ed- • WWF (1999) Natura 2000: opportunities ited by ADPM, 2003. This publication in and obstacles. WWF Austria, Vienna. included within the framework of the WWF • WWF (2000) The Global 200 Ecoregions, Mediterranean project Green Belts against A users guide. Washington. Also: www.panda. desertification. www.adpm.pt org/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions • Pauly, D & R Watson (2005) Background • WWF (2001) A race to protect Europe’s and interpretation of the “Marine Trophic natural heritage. European snapshot report Index” as a measure of biodiversity. Philo- on the status of implementation of the Habi- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society tats Directive. WWF EPO, June 2001. (Biological Sciences) 360 (1454): 415–423. • WWF (2004) Tuna farming in the Mediterra- • Revenga C, Murray S, Abramowitz J, Ham- nean: the bluefin tuna stock at stake. WWF/ mond A. (1998) Watersheds of the world: MEDPO and WWF Spain. June 2004. ecological value and vulnerability. World Re- • WWF (2005a) To dam or not to dam? Five sources Institute and Worldwatch Institute, years on from the World Commission on Washington, DC. Dams. • RSPB (2003) Conflict areas between the • WWF (2005b) Agricultural surpluses “drink” TENS-T and nature conservation. www.bank- the water of 16 million Spanish people: watch.org/publications/studies/2003/conflic- An analysis of irrigation overproduction in tareas_casestudies_06-03.pdf. Contributions Spain. from Birdlife International, CEE Bankwatch, • WWF (2005c) EU Funding for the Envi- Friends of the Earth Europe, T&E and WWF. ronment. A handbook for the 2007–2013 • Schmidt, G. (2004) Saving water by chang- programming period. Available for download ing the CAP. Intervention at Workshop at www.panda.org/epo Drought and water deficiency: from re- • WWF (2005d) La modernización de search to policy making (European Com- regadíos y la Directiva Marco del Agua: 9 mission and French Ministry for Sustainable propuestas de WWF/Adena. Development). Palermo, 8–9 October 2004, Session 3 “Long term management”. 71

• WWF (2005e) Los excedentes agrícolas • WWF/Adena (2005) Sustainable use of “se beben” el agua de 16 millones de es- water resources in agriculture: WWF Pro- pañoles: Un análisis de la sobreproducción posals for the PAC reform in Spain. WWF/ en el regadío Adena. Gran Vía de San Francisco, 8 Esc. D. • WWF (2005f) Implications of EU Subsidies 28005 Madrid (Spain). and Policies to the Conservation of Cork • WWF & Natuur en Milieu & Land Use Policy Oak Ecosystems in Southern Portugal: The Group, 2005. Rural Development Environ- Greenbelt Case Study in cooperation with ment Programmig Guidelines. Available at: ERENA. www.lupg.org.uk/uploaded_photos/pubs_el- • WWF-Greece (undated) Greece and the EU comanualfinal.pdf. funding for the Natura 2000 needs: an ex- • Young, J., Watt, A., Nowicki, P., Alard, D., ample of bad planning. Undated fact sheet. Clitherow, J., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Laczko, • WWF-Hungary (2003) Conference report: E., McCracken, D., Matouch, S., Nemela, J. Financing Natura 2000 in an Enlarged EU. and Richards, C. (2005) Towards sustain- Report of conference, Budapest, Hungary able land use: identifying and managing 28 October 2003. the conflicts between human activities and • WWF-Spain (2003) The Iberian Lynx, an biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodi- endangered species threatened by the versity and Conservation 14: 1642–1661. Spanish water plan. • WWF-Spain (unpublished) Iberian Lynx and public works: identification, inventory and analysis of the public works which can affect potential areas of Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) in Spain. Contacts. Jesús Cobo and Luis Suaréz. 72

Contacts

• Alcazar, Rita • Long, Tony [email protected], Liga para a Protecção da Natureza [email protected], WWF European Policy Office (EPO), (LPN), Sede Nacional/Main Office, Estrada do Calhariz 36 avenue de Tervuren, 1040 Brussels, Belgium de Benfica, 187; 1500-124 Lisboa, Portugal • Maragou, Panagiota • Antonelli, Francesca [email protected], WWF-Greece, 26 Filellinon str., [email protected], WWF Mediterranean Pro- Athens 105 58, Greece gramme Office, Via Po, 25/C; Roma 00198, Italy • Mertzanis, Yorgos • Baumüller, Andreas [email protected], Callisto Wildlife and Nature [email protected], WWF European Policy Of- Conservation Society, 5, Nik. Foka st., fice (EPO), 36 avenue de Tervuren, 1040 Brussels, GR-54621 Thessaloniki, Greece Belgium • Miller, Clare • Beja, Pedro [email protected], Institute for European [email protected], ERENA, Ordenamento e Gestão de Environmental Policy, 28 Queen Anne’s Gate, London, Recursos Naturais, Av. Visconde Valmôr, 11 - 3º,1000 SW1H 9AB, UK and 18 Avenue des Gaulois; B-1040 - 289 Lisboa, Portugal Brussel, Belgium; www.ieep.org.uk • Berrahmouni, Nora • Nielsen, Thomas [email protected], WWF Mediterranean [email protected], WWF European Policy Office Programme Office, Via Po, 25/C; Roma 00198, Italy (EPO), 36 avenue de Tervuren, 1040 Brussels, Belgium • Bratrich, Christine [email protected], WWF International, Danube Car- • Phua, Carol pathian Programme, Mariahilfer Str. 88a/3/9; A-1070 [email protected], WWF European Policy Office Wien, Austria (EPO), 36 avenue de Tervuren, 1040 Brussels, Belgium • Chylarecki, Przemek [email protected] OTOP (BirdLife Poland), ul. Pulawska • Psaroudas, Spyros 46/12, 02-599 Warszawa, Poland [email protected], Callisto Wildlife and Nature Conservation Society, 5, Nik. Foka st., • Cobo, Jesús GR-54621 Thessaloniki, Greece [email protected], WWF/Adena, C/ Gran Vía de San Francisco, 8; 28005 Madrid, Spain • Revez, Jorge [email protected], ADPM - Associação de Defesa do • Cyglicki, Robert Património de Mértola, Largo Vasco da Gama, [email protected] , CEE Bankwatch Network, 7750-328 Mertola, Portugal ul. 5 lipca 45, 70-374 Szczecin, Poland • Dick, Gerald • Schmidt, Guido [email protected], WWF/Adena, C/ Gran Vía de San [email protected],WWF Global Species Programme, Francisco, 8; 28005 Madrid, Spain c/o WWF Austria, Ottakringerstrasse 114, A-1160 Wien, Austria • Schmidt, Stefanie Fine [email protected], WWF-Deutschland, Am Guethpol 11, • Eichelmann, Ulli D-28757 Bremen, Germany [email protected], WWF-Austria, Ottakringerstrasse 114, A-1160 Wien, Austria • Silva, Luis Neves [email protected] WWF Mediterranean • Fleckenstein, Martina Programme, Av. Santiago, Bº Panteras, Bl. 8.1, 3º E/B, [email protected], WWF-Deutschland, WWF 7500-140 V. N. Santo André, Portugal Vertretung in Berlin, Große Präsidentenstraße 10; 10178 Berlin, Germany • Súarez, Luis [email protected], WWF/Adena, C/ Gran Vía de San • Garcia, Raúl Francisco, 8; 28005 Madrid, Spain [email protected], WWF/Adena. c/Gran Vía de San Francisco nº8, CP 28005 Madrid. Spain • Wisniewska, Marta Majka [email protected], WWF Swiatowy Fundusz • Iliopoulos, Yorgos Na Rzecz Przyrody ul., Wisniowa 38 m.1 [email protected], Callisto Wildlife and Nature 02-520 Warsaw, Poland Conservation Society, 5, Nik. Foka st., GR-54621 Thessaloniki, Greece • Znaniecka, Malgorzata [email protected], WWF Swiatowy Fundusz Na Rzecz • Lang, Stefanie Przyrody ul., Wisniowa 38 m.1 02-520 Warsaw, Poland [email protected], WWF European Policy Office (EPO), 36 avenue de Tervuren, 1040 Brussels, Belgium • Liarikos, Constantinos [email protected], WWF-Greece, 26 Filellinon str., Athens 105 58, Greece Main direct drivers of biodiversity loss. The figure demonstrates how almost all direct drivers of biodiversity loss are constant or are expected to increase in intensity in the future. The cell colour indicates the impact to date of each driver on biodiversity in each biome over the past 50–100 years. The arrows indicate the trend in the impact of the driver on biodiversity. Horizontal arrows indicate a continuation of the current level of impact; diagonal and vertical arrows indicate progressively increasing trends in impact. This Figure is based on expert opinion consistent with and based on the analysis of drivers of change in various chapters of the Millennium Assessment report of the Condition and Trends Working Group. This Figure presents global impacts and trends that may be different from those in specific regions.

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, www.MAweb.org Report commissioned by WWF Global Species Programme with support from:

WWF European Policy Ofﬁce (EPO) WWF Forest for Life Programme WWF Global Freshwater Programme WWF Global Marine Programme WWF Mediterranean Programme WWF Germany WWF Spain WWF Greece WWF Poland WWF Austria www.panda.org

WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: • conserving the world’s biological diversity • ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable • promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption © 1986, WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund) ® WWF Registered Trademark owner. ® WWF Registered Trademark Wildlife Fund) World Nature (Formerly For Wide Fund © 1986, WWF – World