Questionnaire

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

QUESTIONNAIRE

A. General Information Please answer ALL questions in this table

Answer

Organisation: Zeleny Kruh

Date: 25. 3. 2015

Country (and, if applicable, region) Czech Republic represented:

Zeleny kruh is the umbrella association of Czech environmental NGOs representing over 100 organisations. The questionnaire was filled in with Organisation(s) represented: contributions of Birdlife CZ, Hnuti DUHA – Friends of the Earth Czech Republic, Ametyst, CSOP Veronica, Hnuti Brontosaurus, Coalition for Natura 2000, Jaro Jaromer, Bioinstitut, Arnika, Sdruzeni Krajina.

Name of contact for enquires (including Mojmir Vlasin follow-up interview if required):

Contact email address: [email protected]

Contact telephone number: +420602404285

Languages spoken fluently by contact Czech, English person:

Language for the interview if it is not possible to conduct it in English

Type of organisations you represent: Nature conservation charity EU authority or agency / Member State authority or agency / business or industry / educational or scientific institute / nature conservation charity / recreation / individual expert / other (please specify).

Sector represented: environment / water / Environment agriculture / forestry / fisheries / transport / energy / extractive industry / industry / housing and other buildings / recreation & tourism / science & education / other (please specify)

Additional comments:

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

Effectiveness This section focuses on assessing the extent to which the objectives of the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive have been met, and any significant factors which may have contributed to or inhibited progress towards meeting those objectives. By 'objectives', we refer not only to the strategic objectives, but also to other specific or operational objectives required under other articles of both Directives (as set out in Annex I to this questionnaire). 'Factors contributing to or inhibiting progress' can relate to the Nature Directives themselves (e.g. the clarity of definitions) or be external factors such as lack of political will, resource limitations, lack of cooperation of other actors, lack of scientific knowledge, or other external factors (e.g. see those listed in the above intervention logic). We are particularly keen to learn of evidence that is not included in the Member State implementation reports1.

S.1.1 What progress have Member States made over time towards achieving the objectives set out in the Directives and related policy documents? Please provide evidence on what progress has or is being made towards the achievement of the objectives set out in Annex I that are of relevance to you. Please address separately the objectives of the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive, and specify which objective(s) you are referring to, with references to the corresponding Articles. If possible quantify the progress that is being made.

Answer: Czech NGOs judge the progress as average or relatively satisfactory. The infringements of the EU legislation and related national law are rather exceptional. Strategic objectives mentioned in Annex I cannot be evaluated (only) at national level. Moreover 10 years of implementation of both directives in the Czech Republic are too short. In 2007 only 17% of 352 reports according to the Art. 17 of the Habitats Directive referred about favourable conservation status of habitats and species, in 2013 it was 23% of 366 reports on conservation status. Specific objectives: - Art. 3 BD – the list of SPAs is completed, although some sites were designated late (CZ0311037 Českobudějovické rybníky or CZ0311037 Dehtář) or with wrong reduction of the area (CZ0531013 Komárov or CZ0811021 Heřmanský stav – Odra - Poolší), management of habitats in SPAs as well as outside is insufficient (also because of unsuitable adjustment of CAP) - Art. 5 BD – the system of protection for all birds is ensured, persisting problem is in conservation outside of protected areas - Art. 7 BD – actually (after amendment of the Hunting Act in 2001 during harmonization with EU legislation) there is no significant problem with legal hunting - Art. 4 HD – Natura 2000 is based on good principles but still not finished. There are registered political influences and key localities (not even named during biogeographical seminars) as Údolí Labe (Elbe valley), Slavíkovy ostrovy or Ždánický les are still not designated. More in the Analysis of Sufficiency of the National List for the Continental Bio-geographical Region in the Czech Republic (Supplement to the Complaints submitted to the European Commission) which is basic document of ongoing EU Pilot. - Art. 6 HD – site management is not ensured, mainly in localities which are not specially protected by law (some Natura sites are protected only in the regime of general protection without

1 Habitats Directive Reports: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/ Birds Directive Reports: http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_12/Reports_2013/ 2

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

designation as national park, landscape protected area, nature reserve or nature monument) and are in care of regional authorities. - Art. 10, 12-13, 14, 22 HD – relatively satisfactory secured.

S.1.2- Is this progress in line with initial expectations? 'Initial expectations' refer to the expectations, positive or negative, held by different stakeholders at the time the legislation transposing the Directives came into force in your country. For example, government reports and plans might provide evidence of intended timetables for the identification and designation of Natura 2000 sites. We are seeking to understand the extent to which progress made to date has met, exceeded, or fallen short of such expectations. If possible, in your answer please address separately each of the objectives referred to in question S1.1 for which you have provided evidence.

Answer: The process of Natura 2000 sites designation (Art. 4 HD) is much more slow-going and politically influenced than was expected. Some sites were deleted from the scientific proposal in the course of inter-ministerial comment proceedings. The lobby is sometimes stronger than meeting state's obligations to EU. The problem is also in non-participative approach during the designation process represented by poor communication with stakeholders (mainly owners and managers). The interest of responsible authorities ensuring the management of sites (Art. 6 HD) is careless and poorly coordinated from Ministry of Environment, Czech NGOs expected more active approach. Management of some sites ignore scientific cognition and needs of target habitats and species on sites, actually we can see problems in counter-productive set agri-environment measures, forest management (traditional management against possibilities for wilderness or forests with needed measures), pond management (too intensive oriented on carps) and spontaneous succession (overgrowing by shrubs) on non-forest habitat types. The degradation of many sites continue and status of target habitats and species worsen. The example of a rapid extirpation of a strong population of globally threatened butterfly, Colias myrmidone, from the White Carpathians was described by Konvička et al. in 2008 (Konvička, M., Beneš., J., Čížek, O., Kopeček, F., Konvička, O., Víťaz., L., 2008: How too much care kills species: Grassland reserves, agri-environmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. Journal of Insect Conservation 12(5): 519-525). The situation changed after pressure caused by scientific results and NGOs activity. Czech NGOs expected much more strict position of the European Commission and assignment of requirements and potentially sanctions. The assessment of complaints is stretching and the complainer is not regularly informed about the process (e.g. complaint on bad conservation of sites Šumava CZ0314024 (EU Pilot 2216/11/ENVI) or Soutok – Podluží CZ0624119 sent by NGO Veronica). Other initial expectations are more or less met.

S.1.3 - When will the main objectives be fully attained? On the basis of current expectations and trends, please provide evidence that indicates the likely year or range of years that the main objectives will be met. By 'main objectives' we mean the strategic objectives of the Birds Directive (as set out in its Article 2) and the Habitats Directives (in its Article 2), as well as the specific objectives set out in Annex I to this document.

Answer: The Czech Republic has to complete the national list during 2015. Czech NGOs (Coalition for Natura 2000) will check the completeness and correctness of the list. The assurance of fully sufficient management is depending on expert data, financing and political will. We are not able to determine when needed state of affairs will come even Czech NGOs insist on

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives fulfilment of the Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive. The pressure from European Commission side is needed.

S.2 – What is the contribution of the Directives towards ensuring biodiversity? In particular to what extent are they contributing to achieving the EU Biodiversity Strategy* Objectives and Targets? By 'contribution towards ensuring biodiversity', we are referring not only to the conservation of the species and habitats specifically addressed by the Directives, but also to biodiversity more broadly defined: i.e. other species and habitats not targeted by the Directives; ecosystems (terrestrial and marine); and genetic diversity, both within and beyond the Natura 2000 network – in line with the EU’s 2050 vision and 2020 headline target and the Targets of the EU's Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. * For an overview of the EU biodiversity Strategy see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/factsheets/Biod%20Strategy%20FS.pdf

Answer: The Directives represent main objectives for habitats and species common for all EU Member States. It enable coordinated maintenance of endangered species and habitat types listed in Annexes of both directives. They refill national and regional conservation instruments. Their contribution is essential in case of economic pressures. Only because these Directives some Czech sites are protected and were saved from decline (e.g. infrastructure (road through SPA CZ0621025 Bzenecká doubrava – Strážnické Pomoraví), navigation (dam in the site Údolí Labe), (af)forestration, using of biocides (Forests of the Czech Republic, a state-owned company, do not use them in SPAs anymore, e.g. in the case of SPA CZ0621025 - Bzenecká Doubrava - Strážnické Pomoraví), intensification of agricultural management (sites represented by ponds) etc.) or housing development. One of examples is the site CZ0214006 Milovice – Mladá where because of protection under Natura 2000 a realisation of bungalows building was not approved. The area of this site is intensively used in other respects and it is in compliance with nature conservation targets (maintenance of heterogeneous biotopes in former military area). The issues connected with natural processes and wilderness protection should be better methodologically managed and implemented. Implementation of Directives enable to implement contemporary expert approach in management of sites for which special conservation measures are needed. The selection of species is not ideal but represent umbrella species enabling protection of endangered biotopes (e.g. Maculinea spp. and valuable meadows, Osmoderma eremita and old trees etc.). Another example of a saproxylic beetle is Cucujus cinnaberinus. Although the species is highly protected and often red-listed little is known about its ecological requirements and status of its populations. In the Czech Republic, where the increasing number of records over the last few years indicates a possible increase in abundance of this beetle, C. cinnaberinus is closely associated with soft-wood and broad leaved trees and is able to colonize man-made habitats from persisting local populations if there is a sufficient supply of suitable dead wood. This beetle is not restricted to old- growth forests or even relict woodland, as previously reported, but currently predominantly inhabits abandoned planted stands of trees like lignicultures or avenues, which have an open canopy. Colonization of stands dominated by hybrid poplars probably resulted in the recent increase in the number of records of this species in the central European countries. However, this could present problems for the protection of this species in future, because the trees in these stands are gradually dying and are not being replaced. The decline and extinction of C. cinnaberinus on the northern and southern edges of its distribution was probably caused by the absence of soft-wooded broadleaved trees in intensively managed forests and other more suitable habitats (Horák, J., Vávrová, E., Chobot, K., 2010: Habitat preferences influencing populations, distribution and conservation of the endangered saproxylic beetle Cucujus cinnaberinus (Coleoptera: Cucujidae) at the landscape level. European Journal of Entomology 107: 81–88).

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

The mapping and monitoring of species and habitat types provides actual data useful for comprehensive biodiversity conservation. Data are stored in a central database administered by Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic and are usually used under administrative procedures or during preparation of management plans. The instrument of financial compensations for managers is practically useful. There are also special subsidies advantageous for the biodiversity. The Directives are contributing to achieving the EU Biodiversity Strategy Objectives and Targets. They are contributing mainly to targets 1, 2 and 3 and partially 5 and 6. Together with the WFD they represent a feasible key instrument for realization of this Strategy. Nevertheless better implementation of natural processes and wilderness protection and restoration is needed.

S.3 – Which main factors (e.g. implementation by Member States, action by stakeholders) have contributed to or stood in the way of achieving the Directive’s objectives? Please summarise evidence of the main factors that have supported or constrained progress towards achieving the objectives of the Nature Directives. As in previous questions, by 'objectives' we mean not only the strategic objectives set out in Articles 2 of both Directives, but also specific and operational objectives, as set out in Annex I to this document. Relevant factors might include, for example, resource limitations, lack of cooperation of other actors, lack of scientific knowledge, or other external factors (e.g. those listed in the above intervention logic).

Answer: Ministry of Environment ensured good data for preparation of the list of SPAs and pSCIs, it also adjusted the Appropriate Assessment in very good way. Anyway the Ministry of Environment changed frequently (at least 4 times since 2004) the approach to Directives implementation following current political situation. It caused many doubts of the public on reasonability of Natura 2000. Ministry never overcame continuing reluctance to complete national list of Natura 2000 (mainly sites as Údolí Labe, Slavíkovy ostrovy or Ždánický les). The cooperation with NGOs was satisfactory in some periods but communication with other stakeholders was mostly insufficient. Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic contributed to the implementation of Directives mainly with collection of expert data, selection of sites based on scientific criteria and allowing their use for other relevant purposes. Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic together with Regional Authorities ensured preparation of management plans and designation of majority of sites. The process was questionable because of quality of final documents and authorities distribution (e.g. the Ministry of Environment prepared principles of conservation for sites in charge of regional authorities). Forests of the Czech Republic, a state-owned company, assumes a consistent negative attitude to Natura 2000 in spite of the fact that it should assist the state commitments fulfilment. Some private companies realized convenient projects (e.g. rivers revitalisation) but majority of managers and owners behave against interests of nature conservation. In general commercial subjects act according to the interest of their profit which means against the sense of the Directives. After all we feel that it´s the main reason why we are working on the “Fitness Check”… Czech NGOs represented by Coalition of NGOs for Natura 2000 prepared analysis of national proposals together with own expert proposal for completion and ensured supervision of the process. NGOs make efforts to work objectively, they realize the non-material value of nature including scientific and recreational importance. They complained several times to European Commission because of infringement of Directives in cases where state institutions decided to break the rules.

S.4 - Have the Directives led to any other significant changes both positive and negative?

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

This question aims to assess whether the implementation of the Nature Directives has brought about any significant environmental, social or economic effects or changes that were not intended or foreseen by the Directive at the time of their approval, and whether these changes were positive, negative or neutral in terms of their contribution towards meeting the objectives of the Directives. Examples of such effects or changes might include the development of a culture of social participation in nature-related decisions as evidenced by Committees for the development of management plans or higher cooperation of departments of different ministries, etc.

Answer: We welcome principles of the Appropriate Assessment transposed to the law and in a certain level satisfactorily implemented. It improved a lot the evaluation of impacts of plans and projects in the Czech Republic. On the other hand the assessment of plans and projects with potential effect is more complicated as investors try to avoid conflicts by skipping this step in a legal process of assessment. The problem is in implementation on the level of regional authorities caused mainly by the lack of methodological control of Ministry of Environment. The implementation of Directives improved also the species protection and introduced effective conservation of habitat types in Natura 2000 sites. Implementation of new action plans for species of Community interest is also triggered by this process. The public awareness on nature conservation issues improved thanks to Directives in fact. Some local communities became aware of their area value and are able to conserve their part of land. On the other hand some political and lobbyist subjects taken Directives as an example of “Brussels dictate” and try to show to the public disadvantageousness of nature conservation.

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

Efficiency Efficiency is essentially a comparison between inputs used in a certain activity and produced outputs. The central question asked here is whether the costs involved in the implementation of the EU nature legislation are reasonable and in proportion to the results achieved (benefits). Both 'costs' and 'benefits' can be monetary and/or non-monetary. A typology of the costs and benefits resulting from the implementation of the Directives is given in Annex II to this questionnaire. In your answers, please describe the nature, value and overall significance of the costs and benefits arising from the implementation of the Directive, supported by evidence.

Y.1 - What are their costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary)? Based on the explanation given above, please indicate, supported by evidence, what types of costs and benefits have resulted from the implementation of the Nature Directives. Please provide evidence, quantitative where possible, of costs and benefits, describe their nature (monetary/non-monetary) and value, and who is affected and to what extent. Please distinguish between the costs and benefits arising from the Directives themselves and those arising as a result of other factors. To facilitate analysis of the answers it would be useful if costs and benefits could be addressed separately.

Answer: It is completely impossible to give relevant information on costs and benefits from NGOs point of view. It is very comprehensive issue and if European Commission want to obtain data reflecting reality, the special expert study would be conducted. Many figures on financial mechanisms were reported to the Commission, especially in the Priority Action Framework (not used in fact). It is difficult or more likely impossible to distinguish costs and benefits of Directives from national nature conservation. We can only note that it is necessary to add into benefits improvement of the status of all nature species and habitat types (not only these of Community importance) in case of appropriate conservation measures. We can acquire healthier environment, more opportunities for eco-friendly business. More educated officers represent also a benefit for our society. The value of the nature is hardly definable. The result of any study (nor Fitness Check) never answer the crucial question, if we want to live in viable nature. It is up to society to decide.

Y.2 - Are availability and access to funding a constraint or support? This question focuses on the proportion of identified funding needs that has been or is being met by EU and Member State funding, respectively, the extent to which the level of available funding affects the implementation of the Directives and enables the achievement of their objectives (as set out in Annex I to this questionnaire), and the extent to which initial funding allocations for nature under EU funding instruments were used as well as any factors which may have favoured or hindered access to and use of funds. In your answer please consider whether funding constraints affect costs or create administrative burdens (eg as a result of limitations on guidance or delays in decision making).

Answer: The availability and access to funding generally support nature conservation according to the Directives but it very differ case by case. Some programmes are badly set and support to enlargement of landscape structure elements and unification of this mosaic, problematic are specially subsidies for agriculture, CAP is still missed opportunity on European level. Setting of crucial Operational Programme Environment is prepared transparently but is not supported by essential expert discussion and is not based on results of monitoring of effectiveness. In the previous period (Operational Programme Environment 2007–2013) the possibility of project realization by applicant wasn´t feasible and many purposeless projects were supported (e.g. construction of ponds for aquaculture). National programmes oriented on nature conservation are well developed and supportive. LIFE+ represent good

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

European financial tool but some criteria (e.g. high level of co-funding, missing criterion supporting European Action Plans for species, deficiency in information projects).

Y.3 - If there are significant cost differences between Member States, what is causing them? This question seeks to understand the factors that affect the costs of implementing the Directives, whether there is evidence of significant cost differences between Member States, and the causes of these cost differences. In your answer, please describe the cost differences and the reasons for them (e.g. whether they arise from specific needs, circumstances or economic factors), supported by quantitative evidence. Do these differences lead to differences in impact? Please note that Question Y.5, below, focuses on good practices in keeping costs low. For this Question Y.3 we are interested in evidence of overall differences in implementation cost (see typology of costs in Annex II to this questionnaire) along with the reasons for them.

Answer: These differences logically exist, again the judgement is not up to national NGOs but on serious analysis made on European level.

Y.4 - Can any costs be identified (especially regarding compliance) that are out of proportion with the benefits achieved? In particular, are the costs of compliance proportionate to the benefits brought by the Directives? Please provide any quantitative evidence you may have demonstrating that the costs of implementing the Directives exceed the benefits. Do the Directives require any measures which give rise to significant costs but which bring about little, or only moderate benefits?. If so, please explain the extent to which any imbalances are caused by the Directives themselves, or by specific approaches to implementation.

Answer: Costs were not always optimally oriented because of prioritisation both providers and recipients. It means that costs for effective management (e.g. restoration management supressing overgrowing by shrubs) could be higher but total monetary costs are adequate. It is necessary to ensure stable costs for monitoring and management in a long-term prospect to be proportionate to the benefits brought by the Directives. For example the management of forest habitat types or biotopes based on the presence of old trees important for saproxylic beetles (as CZ0313099 Hlubocké hráze) must be planed for higher tens of years.

Y.5 - Can good practices, particularly in terms of cost-effective implementation, be identified? Here we are looking for examples of where the objectives of the Directives are being met more cost- effectively in some Member States or regions than others, and the reasons for these differences. It is important to understand whether they are due to particular practices (rather than, for example, differences in needs, circumstances or economic factors) that have kept costs relatively low. We would welcome examples of differences in practices between Member States in implementing the requirements of the Directives, including initiatives designed to achieve cost-effective implementation, and evidence of whether these initiatives or practices have reduced costs in certain Member States or regions.

Answer: Mapping and monitoring of habitats and species of Community interest was a case in point. For example the Habitats Directive Annex I habitats have been interpreted by the national system of biotopes in the Czech Republic. The most extensive field habitat mapping covering the entire Czech

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

Republic in the fine-scale 1:10.000 has been finished in 2004. In Central Europe this is an absolutely unique approach that has resulted to the largest actual database about nature (biotope types in 601960 segments, 9383.7 km2) (Guth, J., Kučera, T., 2005: Natura 2000 habitat mapping in the Czech Republic: Methods and general results. Ekológia 24(1), 39-51). The actualisation of the habitat mapping is ongoing in 12-years periods (Härtel, H., Lončáková, J., Hošek M. )eds.), 2009: Mapování biotopů v České republice. Východiska, výsledky, perspektivy. Praha: Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic, 125 pp.) Preparation of Management plans for Natura 2000 sites and investments connected with their designation is assessed as acceptable even there are some poor examples too (incompetent authors, lack of initial data etc.). Non-intervention management at larger Natura 2000 sites (national parks, wilderness areas) connected with nature based tourism increase have significant positive cost benefit results (e.g.: Dickie I. et al., An outline of economic impacts of management options for Šumava National Park, European Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 5–29 (available at http://www.ejes.cz/index.php/ejes/article/view/153/68 ) or Job H., Mayer M., Forstwirtschaft versus Waldnaturschutz: Regionalwirtschaftliche Opportunitätskosten des Nationalparks Bayerischer Wald, Allgemeine Forst und Jagdzeitung, Vol. 183, No. 7/8, pp. 129-14. There are some examples of good projects (co)financed by EU: Operational Programme Environment: - Revitalisation of an oxbow of Dyje river in Lednice (7 mil. CZK) - Revitalisation of the site CZ0533308 Bohdanečský rybník a rybník Matka and SPA CZ0531012 Bohdanečský rybník (75 mil. CZK) - Revitalisation of the site CZ0210720 Loučeňské rybníčky (1 mil. CZK, project preparation supported by OKD Foundation) LIFE+ projects: - LIFE09 NAT/CZ/000363 Active protection of the SCIs with thermophilous habitat types and species in Lounské Středohoří hills (Lounské Středohoří Steppe) - LIFE11 NAT/CZ/000490 Grasslands and streams restoration in SCI Krkonoše: Future of Nardus grasslands*, Dwarf gentian* & Bullhead (LIFE CORCONTICA) - LIFE09 NAT/CZ/000364 Integrated protection of rare butterfly species of non-forest habitats in the Czech Republic and Slovakia (Butterflies CZ-SK) Also national programmes play an important role, e.g. NGO Hamerský potok is realising comprehensive conservation of localities CZ0313119 Rašeliniště Radlice and CZ0314639 Rybníky u Lovětína financed by national and regional funds.

Y.6 - What are likely to be the costs of non-implementation of legislation? This question seeks to gather evidence on the impacts of non-implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, and its associated costs, whilst assuming that some measures would be taken to conserve nature. Taking into account current national measures that do not arise directly from obligations under the Directives, please describe and, if possible, quantify, with supporting evidence, the potential impacts and associated costs of non-implementation of the Directives, for instance on: habitats and species of Community interest and wider biodiversity; ecosystem services (eg in relation to carbon sequestration, areas for recreation); and economic and social costs (eg jobs and health).

Answer: NGOs don´t have such data. We can only subjectively guess the value of these costs. Fact of continuing degradation of habitats and danger of (total or local) extinction of species can´t be broken without continuous investments. Some valuable sites can cease to exist completely. The decline of biodiversity result in the decline of ecosystem services. Also other monetary and non-monetary 9

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives benefits will decrease. Examples: Soutok – Podluží (SCI CZ0624119 and SPA CZ0621027) – actual management in the area is leading to cutting down of preserved alluvial forests, opening of new oil wells, exploration wells for fracturing to shale gas deposits, gravel extraction and potential construction of Danube-Oder-Elbe water corridor. The loss of open woodlands and the potential for their restoration in this internationally protected biodiversity hot-spot is described in the paper Miklín, J., Čížek, L., 2014: Erasing a European biodiversity hot-spot: Open woodlands, veteran trees and mature forests succumb to forestry intensification, logging, and succession in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Journal for Nature Conservation, vol. 22, Issue 1, p. 35-41. Šumava (SCI CZ0314024 and SPA CZ0311041) – core area is represented by national park but in previous years (1999-2003 and 2011-2013) there was vast clearcutting (ca. 8.000 ha). The possibility of argumentation by EU legislation saved for an instant another highly-valued areas in Šumava.

Y.7 - Taking account of the objectives and benefits of the directives, is there evidence that they have caused unnecessary administrative burden? This question seeks to gather evidence of any unnecessary burden arising from the administrative requirements of the Directives for different stakeholders (MS authorities, businesses, landowners, non- governmental organisations, citizens). Administrative burdens are the costs to businesses and citizens of complying with information obligations resulting from legislation, and relate to information which would not be collected in the absence of the legislation. Some administrative burdens are necessary if the objectives of the legislation are to be met effectively. Unnecessary burdens are those which can be reduced without affecting the objectives. Quantitative evidence may include typical requirements in terms of human resource inputs, financial costs (such as fees and wages), delays for development and other decision-making processes, and other measures of unnecessary or disproportionate burden the administrative costs in terms of effort and time, and other inputs required, financial costs, delays and other measures of unnecessary or disproportionate burden.

Answer: The administrative burden is increasing but connection with implementation of Directives is hardly verifiable. The authorities responsible for high number of Natura 2000 sites and dealing with Appropriate assessment increased attention associated with nature conservation but this fact is not always connected with administrative burden. The situation changed for investors but actual administrative burden at national level is caused mainly by lack of clarity in authorities’ approach. The administrative burden is evident in communication between the state and European Commission (e.g. ineffective reporting on derogations).

Y.8 - Is the knowledge base sufficient and available to allow for efficient implementation? This question seeks to establish the extent to which adequate, up-to-date and reliable information required to implement the Directives efficiently is available, such as information related to the identification, designation, management and protection of Natura 2000 sites, the choice of conservation measures, the management and restoration of habitats, the ecological requirements of species and the sustainable hunting/use of species, permitting procedures, etc. Please indicate key gaps in available knowledge relating to your country and, if relevant, at biogeographical and EU levels. If possible, please provide evidence that inadequacies in the knowledge base have contributed to the costs and burdens identified in previous questions.

Answer: The knowledge base is sufficient but it is needed to improve it continuously. More projects on 10

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives expert information improvement, data and experiences sharing are needed.

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

Relevance Relevance concerns the extent to which the objectives of the nature Directives are consistent with the needs of species and habitats of EU conservation concern. The question of relevance relates to whether the objectives of the legislation are still necessary and appropriate; whether action at EU level is still necessary in light of the challenges identified and whether the objectives and requirements set out in the EU nature legislation are still valid. R.1 - Are the key problems facing species and habitats addressed by the EU nature legislation? By ‘key problem’, we mean the main pressures and threats that species and habitats face, which are significantly widespread in terms of their incidence (geographic extent) and/or magnitude/severity. Do the Nature Directives respond adequately to these problems? Are the specific and operational objectives of the Directives suitable in light of the key problems identified? Please justify your answers with evidence.

Answer: According to Czech NGOs Nature Directives help to address key problems by focusing on target species and habitat types, creating sites for them and setting principles for repressive protection and proactive management. We think it is adequate and sufficient. Key problems are identified mostly on case by case (site by site/ species by species) basis, especially in management plans and in appropriate assessment. Individual site is protected from destructive plans and projects by appropriate assessment procedure and implementation of management measures. Unfortunately, the proactive conservation is still quite weak in the Czech Republic due to low budgets, which causes worse acceptance of repressive protection by proponents and public. Previously, sites were proposed according to subjective criteria, not systematically; mostly were not protected against destructive plans and projects. EIA process in the Czech Republic is quite weak and did not help much in site protection. Today the criteria for site designation are clear and the AA process is transparent and objective. The Directives have helped to address key development projects which significantly affect Natura 2000 sites and reduced or stopped them in many cases. This would not happen without Natura 2000. Examples: - lock at the Elbe River CZ0424111 – for now stopped, compensation measures examined; - road R55 – SPA Bzenecká doubrava-Strážnické Pomoraví CZ0621025 – project modified to exclude significant impacts; - road R52 at Břeclav, SPA Střední nádrž Vodního Díla Nové Mlýny CZ0621030 – for now stopped, compensation measures examined; - wind farms in SPA Východní Krušné hory CZ0421005, SPA Novodomské rašeliniště – Kovářská CZ0421004 – stopped or reduced). - descease of water drenage – SCI Zbytka CZ0524045 - water reservoir Mělčany – stopped, project changed to polder Unfortunately, the implementation of the Directives is quite weak to change Czech agriculture and forestry in some Natura 2000 sites. The Directives did not help to stop inappropriate forestry and agricultural practices which significantly affect Natura 2000 sites (SPA and SCI Sumava – phytosanitary measures against bark beetle caused large clearcuts and damaged significant part of acidophilous spruce forests and negatively influenced capercaillie population; SPA and SCI Soutok – Podluží– actual forestry management is based on large clearcuts whose extent damaged preserved alluvial forests and critically endanger populations of saproxyllic beetles)

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

Nitrogen deposition has unfortunately still quite little concern in praxis, since major changes outside Natura 2000 sites would be required to address the problem. Climate change causes changes of the nature and its consequences are evident in many sites (e.g. blackgrouse population changes – SPA Šumava, Krušné hory, Krkonoše). Independently of Natura 2000, Czech Republic has long tradition of bio-corridors (system of ecological stability). The results of Natura 2000 habitat mapping were used to improve this system but both systems do not cooperate much. Also river basin management is not much cooperating with Natura 2000 (i.e. it is not used proactively to improve status of N2000 sites), even though it is formally incorporated with planning implemented under Water Framework Directive.

R.2 - Have the Directives been adapted to technical and scientific progress? With this question, we are seeking to examine the implications of technical and scientific progress regarding the habitats and species that the Directive focus on. Please summarise, and provide any evidence you may have that indicates that the annexes listing habitats and species in both Nature Directives are, or are not, sufficiently updated to respond to technical and scientific progress.

Answer: According to Czech NGOs the principles of the Directives are universal and are still valid. Technical and scientific progress is being implemented continuously as needed (for example new species found, new approaches to classify habitats, new technologies to exclude impacts etc.). The annexes are sufficiently updated. Natura 2000 have “umbrella effect” (see S.2). Examples of species protection measures : - SPA Východní Krušné hory CZ0421005, SPA Novodomské rašeliniště – Kovářská CZ0421004 – measures are implemented for blackgrouse (revitalisation of peat bogs) and support overall biodiversity - SCI Bystřina - Lužní potok CZ0413177 – revitalisation of the catchment for freshwater pearl- mussel - OP Environment and LIFE+ projects (see Y.5)

R.3 How relevant are the Directives to achieving sustainable development? This question seeks to examine the extent to which the Directives support or hinder sustainable development, which is about ensuring that the needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It requires ensuring a balance between economic development, social development and environmental protection. . In your answer, please provide evidence of the impacts that implementation of the Directives has had in relation to these three 'pillars' of sustainable development.

Answer: According to Czech NGOs the Directives are very relevant because they substantially strengthen the environmental pillar through conservation of biodiversity. EU nature legislation supports regions in sustainable and more local forms of agriculture. It helps to develop social and economic pillars of sustainability. Thanks to LIFE+ project in Lounské Středohoří (NAT/CZ/000363), i.e. proactive management of a N2000 site, the traditional ways of farming are renewed, new people are attracted to the region starting to graze sheep in N2000 grasslands. It has socio-economic benefits for the area. Case 1: Residents in Šumava (SPA and SAC) have income high above average Thanks to nature protection and higher attractiveness for tourists as well as jobs created by NATURA 13

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

2000 itself the average income of residents in the Šumava SPA/SAC is 2 times above the respective district average (even without accounting for the income of one billionaire residing in one of the villages within SPA/SAC) - http://hnutiduha.cz/sites/default/files/publikace/2014/10/je_opravdu_narodni_park_pro_sumavske_obce_pritezi.p df, based on data of Czech Statistical Office and Labour Office of the Czech Republic). Case 2: Natura 2000 creates new work places in peripherial regions Protected areas including Natura 2000 attract tourists and Czech state builds a network of interpretation centres („Dům přírody“ – House of Nature) which brings work opportunities especially in remote areas with traditionally low work market. Overall 8 interpretation centres are built or being built in close co-operation with local stakeholders creating several tens of work places. Highest possible sustainability is secured by inviting local authorities (municipal, forest or others) to operate the facilities (http://www.ochranaprirody.cz/prace-s-verejnosti-a-evvo/domy-prirody/).

R.4 - How relevant is EU nature legislation to EU citizens and what is their level of support for it? The aim of this question is to understand the extent to which citizens value the objectives and intended impact of the EU nature legislation. To this end, we would like to obtain information and evidence on the extent to which nature protection is a priority for citizens (e.g. in your country), including in comparison with other priorities; for example whether citizens (e.g. in your country) support the establishment and/or expansion of protected areas, the extent to which they access/use them or; the extent to which citizens are involved in any aspect of the implementation of the Directives (e.g. participation in the development of management plans of protected areas or decisions concerning the permitting of projects which have an impact on protected areas). Please note that the Birds and Habitats Directives may be relevant to citizens even if they do not actually know of their existence or the existence of the Natura 2000 network.

Answer: According to Czech NGOs citizens benefit from ecosystem services and better environment in many ways. It has also significant long-term economic benefit which much prevails over economic losses at present. Various groups of citizens have various acceptance of NATURA 2000. Of course, environmental NGOs support EU nature legislation and try to explain its importance to public. There exist an informal coalition of NGOs for Natura 2000 which watches the process of site designation in the Czech Republic very carefully. It has very good scientific background and many experts on species and habitats. General public supports nature conservation. People can learn about European context of our nature and its value. Natura 2000 is often viewed as an opportunity (for sustainable agriculture, biofarming, travelling, environmental education etc.) not as restriction. Trips to wilderness and exploration of wildlife is important phenomenon within nature based tourism and is increasing rapidly. Example: 71% of 3000 respondents viewed national park Šumava National Park, a SPA/SAC, as an area which should be left to natural processes (survey by Hnutí DUHA – Friends of the Earth Czech Republic in 2011). http://www.hnutiduha.cz/sites/default/files/publikace/2012/10/anketa_sumava_2011.pdf Example: Citizens together with municipality decided to take care of willows at SCI Jevišovka CZ0623041, they manage trees appropriately for hermit beetle and many other insects. Also, generally positive reaction of the public to, and literally hundreds of positive press stories about, recent population increases and expanding ranges of some N2000-protected species, e.g. large carnivores, birds of prey, common crane and European beaver etc., suggests support for practical effects of Nature directives.

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

On the other hand, groups of developers and politicians started to be really angry with Natura 2000 after it became obvious that it is not only a paper network but it has consequences in praxis. After long term experience with weak EIA system, they were surprised that appropriate assessment is more strict and objective and can stop or change their projects. This caused kind of panic and strong pressure to cancel appropriate assessment and NATURA 2000 as a whole. These groups do not support Natura 2000 and it is a big challenge to communicate with them and try to change their opinion. Within this context, high support for environmental NGOs indicates what conclusions general public takes from these dilemmas. Environmental groups and local councils have for years shared the first rank in Public Opinion Research Centre's long term polling of trust in various actors in environmental policy debate. Also, four larger environmental NGOs – Friends of the Earth, Birdlife, Greenpeace and a national NGO, Czech Union for Nature Conservation – have got combined membership higher than any but one of the country's political parties. NGOs in the Czech Republic are used to participate in decision making processes, the legislative framework is enables public participation (recently, the situation even improved by EIA law amendment forced by EU).

R.5 - What are citizens’ expectations for the role of the EU in nature protection? The aim of this question is to obtain information and evidence on questions such as: whether citizens submit complaints or petitions to the EU requesting its involvement on cases regarding nature protection, whether citizens expect the EU to become more involved in promoting nature protection, or whether nature protection should be left to each individual Member State; whether citizens expect the EU to introduce laws on nature protection to be applied in all Member States equally or whether the EU should limit itself to coordinating Member States’ initiatives; whether the EU should focus on laying down rules, or whether the EU should more actively promote their monitoring and enforcement in Member States.

Answer: Environmental NGOs expect support from EU in cases of breaking the Directives principles. This could be much better and quicker! General public expect effective nature conservation and accessibility of nature for tourism.

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

Coherence

Evaluating the coherence of legislation, policies and strategies means assessing if they are logical and consistent, internally (i.e. within a single Directive), with each other (i.e. between both Directives), and with other policies and legislation. Here we are looking for evidence regarding how far and in what ways the Directives are complementary and whether there are significant contradictions or conflicts that stand in the way of their effective implementation or which prevent the achievement of their objectives.

C.1 – To what extent are the objectives set up by the Directives coherent with each other? This question focuses on coherence between objectives within each Directive, and/or between objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives. It covers not only the strategic objectives but also the specific and operational objectives set out in Annex I to this document. Based on experience in your country/region/sector, please provide evidence of any inconsistencies between the objectives that negatively impact on the implementation of the Directives.

Answer: Both directives, even if created in different time, co-exist successfully, actually the Habitat Directive sets up a detailed common framework for implementation of both of them. No real frictions among these two directives observed, we cannot provide any example of any inconsistencies between objectives of the two directives, neither any example of a real negative impact caused by them. The main reason for this, especially in the case of the Czech Republic, is that both directives were implemented into national legislation in the same time and coherently. The fact, that there are two directives, is thus not obvious on the national level. Sometimes criticism emerge, that the Directives do not explicitly cover wilderness protection, as undisturbed natural processes are one of the three pillars of biodiversity protection. In fact, this seeming gap represents an improper implementation of the existing legislation (both European and national). The best (an in many cases the only) tool for conservation of a respective species or habitat is the protection of undisturbed natural processes on an area of appropriate size and as such it is indirectly required by both the Directives. Member states should be pushed to apply properly the Guidelines on Wilderness in Natura 2000. Lack of this approach can lead to significant damage to species/ecosystems as we could see in SPA and SCI Sumava few years ago ((EU Pilot 2216/11/ENVI).

C.2 – To what extent are the Directives satisfactorily integrated and coherent with other EU environmental law e.g. EIA, SEA? This question is similar to the previous question, but focuses on the extent to which the EU Nature Directives are coherent with and integrated into other EU environment legislation, and the extent to which they are mutually supportive. EU environment legislation of particular relevance to nature conservation includes the following:  Strategic environmental assessment of policy plans and programmes 2001/42/EC Directive (SEA)  Environmental impact assessment of projects 85/337/EC Directive as codified by Directive 2011/92/EU (EIA)  Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, (WFD)  Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD)  Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (FD)  National Emission Ceilings Directive 2001/81/EC (NECD)  Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC (ELD). 16

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

This question considers how the main provisions and measures set out in these instruments interact with the EU nature legislation, including whether there are potential gaps or inconsistencies between these instruments and the EU nature legislation, for example whether the current permitting procedures are working in a coherent way or whether they are acting as barriers to achieve the EU Nature Directive’s objectives; whether the assessments required under the different pieces of EU legislation, in particular under the EIA, are aligned or whether there are differences which result in additional administrative burden; whether any identified gaps and inconsistencies are due to the texts of the Directives or due to implementation in your/a Member State.

Answer: EIA/SEA directives and the Water Framework Directive are perhaps most directly relevant in this respect in the Czech Republic. In terms of legal language, EIA and SEA directives are fully integrated with EU Nature directives. Impact on Natura 2000 is regularly assessed, and there is a reasonable level of integration between Natura 2000 impact assessment and ‘standard’ EIA procedures. Actually, the quality of Natura 2000 impact assessment usually tends to be better. While biodiversity impact assessment in ‘standard’ EIA sometimes tends to be rather formal – listing of nearby nature reserves and protected species on the site –, Natura 2000 impact assessment is more detailed, with more thorough appraisal of implications for biodiversity. Nature directives therefore improve implementation of EIA and, to a lesser extent, SEA directive in the country. Environmental NGOs in the Czech Republic are concerned about implementation of Water Framework Directive. Formally, WFD and Nature directives are integrated. Perhaps more importantly, Nature directives substantially contribute towards, and improve efficiency of, WFD implementation. Convergence of objectives between Nature directives and WFD is often high, and level of clarity and enforceability is often better in Nature directives – e.g. SCIs for freshwater pearl mussel are, due to local conservation measures, some of the water bodies with the best level of WFD implementation. Natura 2000 appears to be fully integrated into implementation of Floods Directive. While there could be some level of convergence in theory, we are not aware of any specific cases. On the other hand, both the Nature Directives are sometimes falsely accused to build barriers for development activities, including for example road constructions. In fact, if these conflicts emerge, they are caused merely by improper planning approach and aversion of the technocrats for searching of neutral solution or acceptable compromise than by real non-solvable situations. The most known negative example is the highway D8 planned to cross Natura 2000 site České Středohoří. In fact, the original plans come from the time far before Natura 2000 in Czech Republic and thus accusing the Directives and Natura 2000 from causing these conflicts is false. The initial assessment was done imperfectly and then the construction works were full of conflicts and delays. Apart of it, there are several examples of proper planning and assessment resulting in fluent execution of development plans without any conflicts with Nature Directives/nature conservation, like the highways D3 (Praha-České Budějovice), R6 (Praha-Karlovy Vary) or all the railway corridors. It is thus obvious that not the directives itself but their improper implementation can cause problems as were as their lack in Czech Republic before 2004. The other example of seeming non-coherence we can found between Birds and Habitats Directive and the Renewable Energy Directive. Construction projects of renewable energy infrastructure (wind farms, solar plants or small hydropower plants) and intense biomass production are unacceptable in many Natura 2000 sites and such plans can cause local conflicts. In fact, the main cause of these frictions are in missing basic planning and strategy documents on national level which should clearly set up borders between possible and undesirable. These documents in respect to Natura 2000 sites are missing.

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

C.3 - Is the scope for policy integration with other policy objectives (e.g. water, floods, marine, and climate change) fully exploited? This question is linked to the previous questions as it addresses the extent to which the objectives of the Nature Directives have been integrated into or supported by the objectives of other relevant EU environment policies. However, this question focuses more on policy implementation. The other EU legislation and policies targeted in this question are the same as those referred to under question C.2, as well as climate change policy. When answering this question, please note that the scope of integration refers to the integration from the EU Nature Directives to other policies as well as to the extent in which the objectives of these other policies are supported by the implementation of the Nature Directives.

Answer: According to our experience, the integration of Birds and Habitats Directives is better integrated on the EU level than on national level. However, possibilities for better integration even on EU level exist, especially for climate change policy where the opportunities of Natura 2000 and nature conservation for climate change adaptation and mitigation are not systematically explored and used. The inevitable changes of ecosystems caused by climate change has to be envisaged and incorporated in the management plans, targets and other strategic documents of Natura 2000. The Birds and Habitats Directives set up a framework for this by obliging member states for taking into account ecological requirements of the respective species/habitat. There are published papers illustrating that protected areas networks, like Natura 2000, form an important and satisfactory backbones of refugees and local hotspots for species adaptation of climate change. As this approach is not fully implemented on the EU level, the worse situation is on the national level (at least in Czech Republic). Evaluation of the potential of the current Natura 2000 network for climate change adaptation is missing and no strategic documents in this respect exist. These gaps should be regarded as imperfect implementation of Birds and Habitats Directives as they set objectives of populations’ preservation and favourable conservation status where changes due to climate change should be taken into account.

C.4 – To what extent do the Nature Directives complement or interact with other EU sectoral policies affecting land and water use at EU and Member State level (e.g. agriculture, regional and cohesion, energy, transport, research, etc.)? In this question we are aiming at gathering evidence on whether the provisions of EU nature legislation are sufficiently taken into account and integrated in EU sectoral policies, particularly in agriculture, rural development and forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, cohesion or regional development, energy, raw materials, transport or research policies. It also addresses whether those policies support and act consistently alongside EU nature legislation objectives Please provide specific examples which show how the Nature Directives are coherent with, or conflict with, relevant sectoral legislation or policies. Please be as precise as possible in your answers, e.g. pointing to specific articles of the legislation and how they support or contradict requirements or objectives of other legislation or policies, stating what are main reasons or factors for the lack of consistency and whether there are national mechanisms in place to monitor coherence.

Answer: There are many examples of positive and negative interactions among Birds and Habitats Directives requirements and other sectoral policies on national level. Usually, until now, different policies are prepared by different bodies without sufficient integration with each other. This is the main cause for inconsistencies, so the solution is clearly in proper and complex planning. In the case of agriculture in the Czech Republic, two main policy tools should implement nature conservation and agricultural operational approaches: the Cross-compliance and RDP, both with moderate success. Cross compliance sets up basic requirements of farming that consists of Good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) and legislation including Nature Directives. In case 18

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives of the Czech republic it aims at protection of habitats as watercourses, floodplains and scattered vegetation and nests of birds (Bird Directive) and subject of protection for Site of European Interests (http://eagri.cz/public/web/file/365514/IV_Prirucka_CC_vlastni_material_web.pdf). Cross compliance helps to understand what is considered as good practise in respect to legislation, but it does not help to improve the real situation yet. The most important parts of the RDP with respect to nature conservation are payments for agrienvironmental (AE) measures, Natura 2000, forest-envi measures and LFA payment. There is improvement of the AE measures as there are new measures on arable land, higher and more flexible measures for grassland management. On the other hand, former whole farm approach is abolished so farmer can avoid entering scheme on the concrete land block – this make this instrument slightly less effective. There is no improvement of the Natura 2000 payment as it is still mainly compensation payment. Also no major improvement has been made for forest management. In the future, more complex approach should be developed (farm plans, complex farming systems including water maintenance or country revitalization). Last official version of the RDP can be downloaded here: http://eagri.cz/public/web/file/321101/PRV_do_vlady.pdf.

C.5 - How do these policies affect positively or negatively the implementation of the EU nature legislation In this question, we are keen to gather evidence on whether agriculture and rural development, fisheries and aquaculture, cohesion or regional development, energy, raw materials, transport and research policies have a positive or negative impact on the achievement of the objectives of nature legislation. Please provide specific examples/cases (including infringement cases or case law), which demonstrate clear conflicts or incoherencies between sectoral policies and EU nature legislation, and/or examples showing how specific policies influence the implementation of the Nature Directives in a positive or negative way, for example in relation to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (see Annex I to this questionnaire). Where possible, please include evidence of the main factors influencing the positive and negative effects. Please consider in your answer what ex ante and ex post evaluation procedures are applied to ensure that this coherence is implemented or supervised.

Answer: The amount of complexity of the other sectoral policies defines the extent and direction in which the respective policy affects nature conservation. If the principles of sustainable development and appropriate measures are integrated into these policies, the effect is positive, if they do not respect the principles of sustainability, they (more often) act against the objectives of Nature Directives and conflicts may occur. A clear example of such old-fashioned policy with detrimental effect on nature conservation (the objectives of Birds and Habitats Directives) is the Common Agricultural Policy. It’s proven by regular yearly reports of Farmland Bird Indicator in the Czech Republic and several scientific papers across Europe that increased intensity of farming measured by crop yields or overall amounts of chemical entries is in direct negative association with the number of farmland birds and whole biodiversity of farmland. These studies shows that the collapse of subsidies for farmers in eastern Europe in the early ninetieths led to quick reaction of bird communities with quick restoration of their populations contrary to the Western Europe, where was no such gap in financing of farming intensity and bird populations decreased all the time. Moreover, it seems that the rate of decrease accelerated (in the case of Czech Republic) after 2005, after the accession to the European Union and the current value of the Farmland Bird Indicator is the lowest since the start of measurements in 1982. It is obvious that Common Agricultural Policy, even with its Pillar II and agri-environmental payments, is still the main cause of net loss of farmland birds (and overall biodiversity of farmland) across Europe. REIF J., VOŘÍŠEK P., ŠŤASTNÝ K., BEJČEK V. & PETR J. 2008: Agricultural intensification and farmland birds: new insights from a central European country. Ibis. doi: 10.1111/j.1474- 919x.2008.00829.x. VERMOUZEK Z. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012; VERMOUZEK Z., ZÁMEČNÍK V. & VOŘÍŠEK P.

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

2013; VERMOUZEK Z. & ZÁMEČNÍK V. 2014: Farmland Bird Indicator for the years 2008—2014. Unpublished studies for the Ministry of Environment. VOŘÍŠEK P., JIGUET F., VAN STRIEN A., ŠKORPILOVÁ J., KLVAŇOVÁ A. & GREGORY R. D. 2010. Trends in abundance and biomass of widespread European farmland birds: how much have we lost? BOU Proceedings – Lowland Farmland Birds III. On the other hand, whereas the effects of CAP on landscape level is detrimental, there are examples of positive effects of special provisions on the local level. As such example of and functioning agri- environmental scheme visibly supporting biodiversity of farmland birds is a new agri-environmental scheme for protection of Lapwings nesting sites on arable land in the Czech Republic. Even if it is a new scheme which cannot be objectively evaluated until now (starting in 2015), it can serve as example of targeted measure with clear objective supporting the objectives of Birds and Habitats Directive. It shows that proper planning and political will to support nature conservation from other sectoral policies can work.

C.6- To what extent do they support the EU internal market and the creation of a level playing field for economic operators? This question seeks to gather evidence of the implications of the EU Nature Directives for economic operators in terms of whether they help ensure a level playing field across the EU (e.g. by introducing common standards and requirements for activities carried out in or around Natura 2000 areas or otherwise depend on natural resources protected under the Directives), predictability and legal certainty (e.g. helping to avoid that developments are blocked due to 'Not In My Backyard' type challenges), or whether they negatively affect the internal market.

Answer: Shared environmental standards are one of the basic tools to achieve fair conditions for the common European market. These standards need to be set at the highest possible level to prevent temptation of companies/regions/states to use temporary competitive advantage of destroying local environment. Generally, despite many attempts in last years, we still cannot properly assess and quantify all the ecosystem services provided by nature and their long term changes. Several studies however show that as broader and with long-term vision the study is, the more valuable are also the profits from wise and sustainable use of natural resources, including live nature (ecosystems and their components). More directly, high conservation standards usually support local economy by creating new work opportunities and new markets. This could be demonstrated on two case studies from the Czech Republic: Case 1: Municipalities in Šumava (SPA and SAC) have per capita income high above average Thanks to nature protection and higher attractiveness for tourists and work places created by NATURA 2000 itself the average per capita income of municipalities in the Šumava SPA/SAC is 2 times above the respective county average (even without accounting for the income of one millionaire residing here) – http://hnutiduha.cz/sites/default/files/publikace/2014/10/je_opravdu_narodni_park_pro_sumavske_obce_pritezi.p df, based on data of Czech Statistical Office and Work Office of the Czech Republic). Case 2: Natura 2000 creates new work places in distant regions Protected areas including Natura 2000 attract tourists and Czech state builds a network of interpretation centres („Dům přírody“ – House of Nature) which brings work opportunities especially in remote areas with traditionally low work market. Overall 8 interpretation centres are built or being built in close co-operation with local stakeholders creating several tens of work places directly and many more indirectly (supporting services). Highest possible sustainability is secured by inviting local authorities (municipal, forest or others) to operate the facilities (http://www.ochranaprirody.cz/prace-s- verejnosti-a-evvo/domy-prirody/).

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

C.7 – To what extent has the legal obligation of EU co-financing for Natura 2000 under Article 8 of the Habitats Directive been successfully integrated into the use of the main sectoral funds? This question builds on question Y.2 on the availability and access to funding, but aims at examining whether Member States have sufficiently identified the funding needs and are availing of EU funding opportunities to meet the requirements of Article 8 of the Habitats Directive. EU co-funding for the Natura 2000 network has been made available by integrating biodiversity goals into various existing EU funds or instruments such as the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), European (Maritime and) Fisheries Fund (EFF / EMFF), Structural and Cohesion funds, LIFE and Horizon 2020. In your reply, please distinguish between different sources of funding.

Answer: There are very few really positive examples of financing of Natura 2000 by other sectoral funds. In the case of the Czech Republic, the amounts targeted to this objective in various EAFRD, Structural and Cohesion financing schemes are low. This fact is the main reason why many objectives of Natura 2000 are not met. There is continuing approach by most of the policy-maker that regional development or agriculture need more support than biodiversity and European commission cannot counterbalance these attitudes. Ambitious targets of European nature conservation need a better and complex financing tool than the current shattered and inconsistent funding. A clear example of inefficiency were the prioritised action framework (PAF) prepared few years ago. The whole exercise was rather formal, done by state nature conservancy without any consultations with other relevant stakeholders, neither other state ministries nor NGOs and experienced local conservation managers. The European Commission finally did not require neither these consultations nor the real integration of the established priorities into the sectoral financial plans. As a result, the state until now has not clear and functioning objectives for financing Natura 2000 and complex view of financing nature conservation under different financial schemes.

C.8 - Are there overlaps, gaps and/or inconsistencies that significantly hamper the achievements of the objectives? This question refers to overlaps, gaps and/or inconsistencies in the different EU law/policy instruments regarding nature protection. It therefore depends largely on the results of other questions related to the coherence of the Nature Directives with other EU law and policies. When answering this question you may want to consider whether the identified overlaps, gaps and inconsistencies hamper the achievement of the Directive’s objectives (e.g. see Annex I to this questionnaire).

Answer: We are not aware of any inconsistencies or gaps within the Directives that can hamper their objectives. However, the EU Inspection Directive is strongly missing as monitoring and exacting tool unifying the approaches among and within member states. Currently these basic tools of governance are heavily undervalued and inefficiently uses. For example, in the Czech Republic in several cases the fines for similar offences against nature protection were significantly higher when set by the Czech Environmental Inspectorate than when set by national courts. This inconsistence creates huge legal uncertainty what undermine even the sole objectives of Nature Directives. The demand for unified and systematic approaches among and within countries is also described in the European Roadmap to eliminate the illegal killing of birds (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/docs/Roadmap%20illegal%20killing.p df).

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

C.9 - How do the directives complement the other actions and targets of the biodiversity strategy to reach the EU biodiversity objectives? With this question we seek to collect evidence on ways in which the implementation of measures under the Birds and Habitats Directives that are not explicitly mentioned in the EU Biodiversity Strategy, help to achieve actions and targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. For example, restoration of Natura 2000 sites can significantly contribute to helping achieve the goal under Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems.

Answer: Birds and Habitats Directives and national legislation implementing them have a crucial role in achieving all the objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Functioning system of protected areas under Natura 2000 needs to be supplemented by appropriate measures in other sectoral policies to allow the use of full potential of Natura 2000 as a network of biodiversity hotspots. In the same time, Natura 2000 shows that achieving targets set by EU Biodiversity Strategy is possible. The implementation of both the Directives and especially Natura 2000 supported and strengthened the existing system of protected areas in Czech Republic. Natura 2000 brought a new quality and systematic approach to the territorial protection, with more and systematically chosen phenomena under protection.

SPA for Capercaillie protects also all other parts of local (bird) communities and form a carbon-storage area Several consecutive studies (see bellow) confirm that areas protected as SPA (main target species Capercaillie), where are standard forester’s activities prevented even in the case of Bark Beetle outbreaks, host much more stable and valuable bird communities than areas with traditional “industrial” forest management. Also non-target species and their natural community are fully conserved by the Capercaillie protection. It is obvious that such sites could provide gene bank and sufficient numbers of individuals for (re)colonisation of other areas in the future. In the same time, non-intervention areas, here intended mainly for Capercaillie preservation, form an important carbon- storage area in Central Europe where all the biomass remain intact in the natural cycles (see http://casopis.vesmir.cz/clanek/lesy-v-globalnim-kolobehu-uhliku). ČSO 2006: Srovnávací ornitologický průzkum v lokalitách Chlum, Špičák a Smrčina (Ptačí oblasti Boletice a Šumava). Unpubl. study for Sumava National Park Administration. ČSO 2007: Ornitologický průzkum lesního komplexu Plechý – Třístoličník (Ptačí oblast Šumava). Unpubl. study for Sumava National Park Administration. ČSO 2009: Ornitologický monitoring lesních komplexů Trojmezná, Smrčina a Knížecí stolec (Ptačí oblast Šumava a Boletice). Unpubl. study for Sumava National Park Administration. ČSO 2010: Ornitologický monitoring lesních komplexů Poledníku (Ptačí oblast Šumava). Unpubl. study for Sumava National Park Administration. HORA J. 2011: Reakce ptačího společenstva na změny v lesních porostech komplexu Smrčina – Hraničník (NP Šumava). Unpubl. study for Sumava National Park Administration. HORA J., 2013a: Reakce ptačích společenstev na disturbance horského lesa na Poledníku (NP Šumava). Unpubl. study for Sumava National Park Administration. HORA J., 2013a: Reakce ptačích společenstev na změny v lesním komplexu Plechý – Třístoličník (NP Šumava). Unpubl. study for Sumava National Park Administration. HORA J. & KLOUBEC B. 2009: Reakce ptačího společenstva na změny v lesních porostech komplexu Knížecí stolec – Lysá po orkánu Kyrill. Unupbl. study for Army Forests and Farms of the Czech Republic.

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

C.10: How coherent are the directives with international and global commitments on nature and biodiversity? This question seeks to assess whether and how the EU nature legislation ensures the implementation of obligations arising from international commitments on nature and biodiversity which the EU and/or Member States have subscribed to2, and whether there are gaps or inconsistencies between the objectives and requirements of the EU nature legislation and those of relevant international commitments, including the way they are applied. For example, the Directives’ coherence with international agreements which establish targets relating to nature protection and/or require the establishment of networks of protected areas.

Answer: Both Birds and Habitats Directives are fully coherent with the international conventions, they form the basic internal piece of legislation for fulfilling the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species and the Bern Convention on European Habitats. On national level, Natura 2000 sites form a legal protection for the sites designated under the international conventions, like Ramsar sites, Biosphere reserves and others. In numbers, 77% of the area of Biosphere reserves and 79% of the area of Ramsar sites in Czech Republic are protected under Natura 2000.

2 e.g. Bern Convention; Convention on Biological Diversity; Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; Ramsar Convention; European landscape Convention; CITES Convention; CMS (Bonn) Convention; International Convention for the protection of Birds; Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds; Regional Sea Conventions (Baltic, North East Atlantic, Mediterranean and Black Sea). 23

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives

EU Added Value Evaluating the EU added value means assessing the benefits/changes resulting from implementation of the EU nature legislation, which are additional to those that would have resulted from action taken at regional and/or national level. We therefore wish to establish if EU action (that would have been unlikely to take place otherwise) made a difference and if so in what way? Evidence could be presented both in terms of total changes since the Directives became applicable in a particular Member State, in changes per year, or in terms of trends.

AV.1 - What has been the EU added value of the EU nature legislation? When responding to this question, you may wish to consider the following issues: What was the state of play or the state of biodiversity in your country at the moment of the adoption of the Directives and/or your country’s entry into the EU? To what extent is the current situation due to the EU nature legislation? In answering this question, please consider different objectives/measures set out in the Directives (eg regarding protected areas, species protection, research and knowledge, regulation of hunting, etc, including their transboundary aspects).

Answer: According to Czech NGOs EU nature legislation helps to protect species in whole area of their occurrence. It supports cross-border cooperation which is relevant in all Czech national parks (Šumava, Krkonoše, České Švýcarsko and Podyjí) and many other sites. Natura 2000 helps species and habitat types protection especially through the whole-European scale of protection, sometimes through cooperation on both sides of the border (eg. capercaillie and lynx in Šumava NP, black-grouse in Krušné hory – 2 Czech SPA + 5 German SPA, freshwater pearl mussel at Czech-Bavaria-Saxony border). The coherence of the network should be better at the borders – which should be better organised by member states and better watched by EC. Czech system of appropriate assessment was built on the principles of the EU nature legislation and is significantly more independent than Czech EIA system. It helps to prevent areas from destruction. The total area of protected sites expanded in whole Europe on common background. Czech nature was independently evaluated in the European context. Its value is recognised by the interest from EU. EU nature legislation supports regions in sustainable and more local forms of agriculture – this could be very important in case of big crisis.

AV.2 - What would be the likely situation in case of there having been no EU nature legislation? This question builds on question AV.1. In answering it, please consider the different objectives/measures set out in the Directives (eg. whether there would be a protected network such as that achieved by Natura 2000; whether the criteria used to identify the protected areas would be different, whether funding levels would be similar to current levels in the absence of the Nature Directives; the likelihood that international and regional commitments relating to nature conservation would have been met; the extent to which nature conservation would have been integrated into other policies and legislation, etc).

Answer: Without EU nature legislation the species and habitat types would be more endangered because of less systematic, conceptual and international protection. The political pressures would be stronger which would seriously affect the status of biodiversity. Many valuable sites would not be protected. There are still political pressures in the Czech Republic 24

Evaluation study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives which try to discredit independent selection of sites – without Natura 2000 these pressures would prevail against the protection of sites. The protection of species and habitats would be less scientific and conceptual, uncoordinated across Europe. Less sites would be protected. International cooperation would stay only occasional. The international conventions (Bern, Bonn, Ramsar) would not be implemented and stay only on paper. We have several rare species which were neglected and their sites were almost unknown before Natura 2000, they increased significantly with better knowledge of the species (Euphydryas aurinia, Coenagrion ornatum, Vertigo geyeri, Hamatocaulis vernicosus, Coleanthus subtilis etc.). Their sites are protected from damage thanks to Natura 2000.

AV. 3 - Do the issues addressed by the Directives continue to require action at EU level? When answering this question the main consideration is to demonstrate with evidence whether or not EU action is still required to tackle the problems addressed by the Directives. Do the identified needs or key problems faced by habitats and species in Europe require action at EU level?

Answer: EU action is still much required to improve implementation of directives in member states (eg. better methodological framework for appropriate assessment, site management, better coordination of international information exchange, quick and clear procedure in cases of Directives violation etc.) Many species and habitats need protection on the whole European level. It is worth protecting them in regions where the populations are still large, it is important to have same rules (not hunting animals which are protected elsewhere etc.). Migratory species have much more concern after implementation of EU Directives (migratory studies for large carnivores – lynx, wolf, brown bear in Beskydy, lynx in SW Bohemia, Šumava).