The challenge of financing the implementation of Natura 2000 – Empirical evidence from six European Union Member States

Abstract Natura 2000, which is the core pillar of the European Union's biodiversity conservation policy, is an ambitious and complex venture that requires funding to be successful. A major challenge is said to be a lack of available funding, and a low uptake of allocated funds is also reported. However, in in-depth analysis has still not been produced to assess the approaches to funding, the reasons for these approaches and their impact regarding the achievement of the aims of Natura 2000. Thus, with this article, we intend to fill this gap. To accomplish this, a case study analysis was carried out in six selected EU Member States: Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. In our study, we perceived different approaches which we sum up to two main types of approaches that were present in the Member States to different degrees. The first type was to find the funding necessary for the required activities, and the second was to delay the implementation of Natura 2000. The major reasons for the different approaches were related to domestic political power realities. The funding approaches impacted onto the attractiveness of EU co-financing instruments, and the sustainability of the schemes. Alternative approaches were either absent or declining in importance. The economic benefits were not perceived on the ground. We conclude that neither a “one size fits all” approach to funding Natura 2000 will work nor will a universal claim for “more money”. Therefore, a successful funding strategy ultimately necessitates effective interventions at institutional levels, the business environment and the local level.

[1]  T. Christophersen,et al.  The influence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process , 2002 .

[2]  E. Gómez‐Baggethun,et al.  In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of Market-Based Instruments in ecosystem services governance , 2015 .

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

[4]  Frank Wätzold,et al.  Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European biodiversity conservation policy , 2005 .

[5]  M. Sotirov,et al.  The implementation of Natura 2000 in forests: A trans- and interdisciplinary assessment of challenges and choices , 2015 .

[6]  Philipp Mayring Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse : Grundlagen und Techniken , 2003 .

[7]  Raoul Beunen,et al.  The governance of Natura 2000 sites: the importance of initial choices in the organisation of planning processes , 2011 .

[8]  L. Borrass Varying practices of implementing the Habitats Directive in German and British forests , 2014 .

[9]  Melanie Mewes,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of managing Natura 2000 sites: an exploratory study for Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland , 2010, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[10]  M. Krott,et al.  Customizing elements of the International Forest Regime Complex in Poland? Non-implementation of a National Forest Programme and redefined transposition of NATURA 2000 in Bialowieza Forest , 2017 .

[11]  Raoul Beunen,et al.  Natura 2000 Network: A Comparison of the Italian and Dutch Implementation Experiences , 2010 .

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

[13]  T. Kull,et al.  Conflicts between Biodiversity Conservation and Human Activities in the Central and Eastern European Countries , 2007, Ambio.

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

[15]  G. Weiss,et al.  The implementation of Natura 2000 in Austria—A European policy in a federal system , 2016 .

[16]  M. Sotirov,et al.  Whose integration is this? European forest policy between the gospel of coordination, institutional competition, and a new spirit of integration , 2016 .

[17]  M. Sotirov,et al.  Symbolic transformation of environmental governance: implementation of EU biodiversity policy in Bulgaria and Croatia between Europeanization and domestic politics , 2015 .

[18]  A. Fortier,et al.  Can a Territorial Policy be Based on Science Alone? The System for Creating the Natura 2000 Network in France , 2001 .

[19]  A. Proelss,et al.  Europe Needs a New Vision for a Natura 2020 Network , 2013 .

[20]  Felix Rauschmayer,et al.  Participation in EU Biodiversity Governance: How Far beyond Rhetoric? , 2009 .

[21]  J. Paavola Protected Areas Governance and Justice: Theory and the European Union’s Habitats Directive , 2004 .

[22]  S. Möckel,et al.  Improving the Policy Mix: The Scope for Market‐Based Instruments in EU Biodiversity Policy , 2013 .

[23]  N. Jones,et al.  Exploring perceptions on participatory management of NATURA 2000 forest sites in Greece , 2015 .

[24]  D. McCauley Sustainable development and the ‘governance challenge’: the French experience with Natura 2000 , 2008 .

[25]  Francesco Duina,et al.  Explaining Legal Implementation in the European Union , 1997 .

[26]  Anne Stenger,et al.  Incentive Contracts for Natura 2000 Implementation in Forest Areas , 2010 .

[27]  Andrew Jordan,et al.  Implementing EU biodiversity policy: UK experiences , 2000 .

[28]  Susana Aguilar Fernández Spanish Coordination In The European Union , 2003 .