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: 1 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 3 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