The challenge of implementing the European network of protected areas Natura 2000

Established under the European Union (EU) Birds and Habitats Directives, Natura 2000 is one of the largest international networks of protected areas. With the spatial designation of sites by the EU member states almost finalized, the biggest challenge still lying ahead is the appropriate management of the sites. To evaluate the cross-scale functioning of Natura 2000 implementation, we analyzed 242 questionnaires completed by conservation scientists involved in the implementation of Natura 2000 in 24 EU member states. Respondents identified 7 key drivers of the quality of Natura 2000 implementation. Ordered in decreasing evaluation score, these drivers included: network design, use of external resources, legal frame, scientific input, procedural frame, social input, and national or local policy. Overall, conservation scientists were moderately satisfied with the implementation of Natura 2000. Tree modeling revealed that poor application of results of environmental impact assessments (EIA) was considered a major constraint. The main strengths of the network included the substantial increase of scientific knowledge of the sites, the contribution of nongovernmental organizations, the adequate network design in terms of area and representativeness, and the adequacy of the EU legal frame. The main weaknesses of Natura 2000 were the lack of political will from local and national governments toward effective implementation; the negative attitude of local stakeholders; the lack of background knowledge of local stakeholders, which prevented well-informed policy decisions; and the understaffing of Natura 2000 management authorities. Top suggestions to improve Natura 2000 implementation were increase public awareness, provide environmental education to local communities, involve high-quality conservation experts, strengthen quality control of EIA studies, and establish a specific Natura 2000 fund.

[1]  E. Turnhout,et al.  Shifting nature conservation approaches in Natura 2000 and the implications for the roles of stakeholders , 2014 .

[2]  M. D’Amen,et al.  Protected areas and insect conservation: questioning the effectiveness of Natura 2000 network for saproxylic beetles in Italy , 2013 .

[3]  Luigi Boitani,et al.  Contribution of the Natura 2000 Network to Biodiversity Conservation in Italy , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[4]  C. Iojă,et al.  The efficacy of Romania's protected areas network in conserving biodiversity , 2010 .

[5]  M. Spalding,et al.  The world's protected areas : status, values and prospects in the 21st Century , 2008 .

[6]  R. K. Neumann,et al.  EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity , 2014, Science.

[7]  J. Watson,et al.  From Publications to Public Actions: When Conservation Biologists Bridge the Gap between Research and Implementation , 2010 .

[8]  Eea Protected areas in Europe:an overview , 2012 .

[9]  Mark P. Johnson,et al.  Protected Areas in Europe , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Danilo Russo,et al.  Modelling geographic distribution and detecting conservation gaps in Italy for the threatened beetle Rosalia alpina , 2013 .

[11]  R. Gregory,et al.  Response to Comment on "International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe" , 2008, Science.

[12]  M. Araújo,et al.  The Effectiveness of Iberian Protected Areas in Conserving Terrestrial Biodiversity , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[13]  Olaf Bastian,et al.  The role of biodiversity in supporting ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites , 2013 .

[14]  J. Keulartz,et al.  European Nature Conservation and Restoration Policy—Problems and Perspectives , 2009 .

[15]  Andreas Y. Troumbis,et al.  Questioning the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Special Areas of Conservation strategy: the case of Crete , 2004 .

[16]  Joanna Cent,et al.  Expansion of Nature Conservation Areas: Problems with Natura 2000 Implementation in Poland? , 2010, Environmental management.

[17]  U. Schneider,et al.  Gap analysis of European wetland species: priority regions for expanding the Natura 2000 network , 2011, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[18]  Carsten F. Dormann,et al.  “Mind the gap!” – How well does Natura 2000 cover species of European interest? , 2012 .

[19]  M. Cabeza Knowledge gaps in protected area effectiveness , 2013 .

[20]  Considerable environmental bottlenecks for species listed in the Habitats and Birds Directives in the Netherlands , 2013 .

[21]  C. M. Sobrino,et al.  Loss of European Dry Heaths in NW Spain: A Case Study , 2013 .

[22]  Antonios D Mazaris,et al.  Human Activities in Natura 2000 Sites: A Highly Diversified Conservation Network , 2013, Environmental Management.

[23]  Tasos Hovardas,et al.  Evaluation of the Environmentalist Dimension of Ecotourism at the Dadia Forest Reserve (Greece) , 2006, Environmental management.

[24]  L. Stringer,et al.  Participation in environmental conservation and protected area management in Romania: A review of three case studies , 2013, Environmental Conservation.

[25]  Kalliope Pediaditi,et al.  Participation in the management of Greek Natura 2000 sites: evidence from a cross-level analysis. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[26]  Kaja Peterson,et al.  Screening Decisions Concerning The Likely Impacts Of Plans And Projects On Natura 2000 Sites , 2010 .

[27]  J. Paavola,et al.  Governance of biodiversity in Poland before and after the accession to the EU: the tale of two roads , 2012, Environmental Conservation.

[28]  Paul Opdam,et al.  Identifying uncertainties in judging the significance of human impacts on Natura 2000 sites , 2009 .

[29]  C. Wamsler,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Education and Differential Vulnerability to Natural Disasters Climate Change, Adaptation, and Formal Education: the Role of Schooling for Increasing Societies' Adaptive Capacities in El Salvador and Brazil , 2012 .

[30]  Tara Söderman,et al.  Natura 2000 appropriate assessment: Shortcomings and improvements in Finnish practice , 2009 .

[31]  D. Pettenella,et al.  Protecting biodiversity outside protected areas: can agricultural landscapes contribute to bird conservation on Natura 2000 in Italy? , 2013 .

[32]  A. Auniņš,et al.  Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union , 2012 .

[33]  J. Pantis,et al.  Development Plans versus Conservation: Explanation of Emergent Conflicts and State Political Handling , 2010 .

[34]  T. Dawson,et al.  Accommodating climate change contingencies in conservation strategy. , 2013, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[35]  A. Hamann,et al.  Conservation planning under climate change: accounting for adaptive potential and migration capacity in species distribution models , 2013 .

[36]  V. Bretagnolle,et al.  Local improvement of skylark and corn bunting population trends on intensive arable landscape: a case study of the conservation tool Natura 2000 , 2014 .

[37]  Douglas Evans,et al.  Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 network , 2012 .

[38]  J. Cent,et al.  Roles and impacts of non-governmental organizations in Natura 2000 implementation in Hungary and Poland , 2013, Environmental Conservation.

[39]  K. Pediaditi,et al.  Local Community Participation in Italian National Parks Management: Theory versus Practice , 2012 .

[40]  Juliette Young,et al.  Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe , 2005, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[41]  J. Paavola,et al.  Participation and Protected Areas Governance: the Impact of Changing Influence of Local Authorities on the Conservation of the Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland , 2012 .

[42]  L. Cronbach Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[43]  D. Doak,et al.  What is the future of conservation? , 2014, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[44]  S. Sanderson The Future of Conservation , 2002 .