Select Committee on European Communities Twenty-Second Report


APPENDIX 4

Status of implementation of Natura 2000 in the EU Member States as at December 1998

Annex I to Memorandum of 28 April 1999 by WWF-UK (Interim Report, evidence pp 1-7)

STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF NATURA 2000 IN THE EU MEMBER STATES DECEMBER 1998

ABBREVIATIONS USED:

  EC=European Commission; SCI=Site of Community Importance; pSCI=proposed SCI; HD=Habitats Directive; MS=Member State(s).

  1.  Status of the national lists of proposed SCIs
M
E
M
B
E
R

S
T
A
T
E
Number of Sites of Community Importance proposed under the Habitats Directive;
In Italic:
number of SPAs under the Birds Directive
Percentage of national land area/l.a.+marine area/m.a. covered (proposed SCIs only) National area (land+marine) in km2 covered by proposed SCIs;
In Italic:
by SPAs
Average size of km2 of proposed SCIs
In Italic:
of SPAs
Value of the official list of proposed SCIs, according to the European Commission
In Italic:
Value of SPA lists
"New quality" value of the list of SCIs according to NGOs Ratio official sites/shadow sites Threatened pSCIs
A
U
S
T
R
I
A
90 (113 with double status sites)
58
11%9,125
11,333
101.38
195.39
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms incomplete or partially trasmitted
— classification incomplete
— incomplete information and area maps or partial transmission
2,254 km2 of "new quality sites" 113 pSCI/63
shadow sites
About 20 shadow sites are threatened (hydro-electric power plants and golf sites, ski-tourism, highway projects . . .)
B
E
L
G
I
U
M
101
36
2.4% l.a.
0.5% m.a.
908
4,313
8.99
114.8
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms complete for transmitted sites
— classification complete
— incomplete information and area maps or partial transmission
about 0%no shadow list yet Not known
D
E
N
M
A
R
K
194
111
6.6% l.a.
17.2% m.a.
10,259
9,601
52.88
86.49
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms complete for transmitted sites
— classification complete
— information complete for transmitted sites; area maps computerised and coherent for transmitted sites
almost noneno shadow list Problem with private-owned forests/only state forests have been claimed under HD
F
I
N
L
A
N
D
415
15
7.6% 25,599
967
61.68
64.46
— partial but insufficient national list
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms incomplete or partially transmitted
— classification notably insufficient
— no transmission of information nor of area maps
About one tenth is "new quality" shadow list not yet readyProbably 5 to 15 sites threatened by road, harbour, mining development plans
F
R
A
N
C
E
652
107a complement of pSCIs to be sent in January 1999 (up to 800 sites)
2.5% land area
0.3 marine area
(the new list should cover 4%)
15,200
7,600
23.31
71.02
— partial but insufficient national list
— site maps incomplete or partially transmitted and no Natura 2000 form transmitted
— classification notably insufficient
— incomplete information or partial transmission; area maps complete for transmitted sites
  about 8/10 expected in the new list to be presented A lot of pSCIs are not already protected which does not mean they are threatened
G
E
R
M
A
N
Y
602
551
1% l.a.
1.4% m.a.
  8,704
14,121
14.45
25.62
— partial but insufficient national list
— site maps complete for transmitted sites but Natura 2000 forms incomplete or partially transmitted
— classification incomplete
— incomplete information and area maps or partial transmission
    
G
R
E
E
C
E
230 (264 with double status sites)
52
17% l.a.
2.5 m.a.
25,745
4,965
111.93
95.48
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms complete for transmitted sites
— classification incomplete
— information and area maps complete for transmitted sites
already protected sites are included in the national list of pSCIs. However, the ratio seems to be towards "new quality" 264/27 (but WWF-GR will add some new sites to their shadow list) Yes. The conservation status of the pSCIs isn't clear, especially for new sites and without prior conservation status. No management body is responsibile for protected areas in Greece yet. So these "new" protected areas are protected only on paper.
I
R
E
L
A
N
D
48
109
0.8% 542
2,226
11.29
20.42
— partial but insufficient national list
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms complete for transmitted sites
— classification incomplete
— incomplete information or partial transmission; area maps computerised and coherent for transmitted sites
  48/214 At least 23 pSCIs are damaged or threatened by mudflat and dune reclamation, peat extraction, infra-structure building . . .
I
T
A
L
Y
2,480
108
15.3%46,074
4,530
18.57
41.94
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms complete for transmitted sites
— classification notably insufficient
— incomplete information and area maps or partial transmission
about 2/3 is "new quality"   Yes
L
U
X
E
M
B
O
U
R
G
38
6
13.6% 352
14
9.2
2.3
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms complete for transmitted sites
— classification notably insufficient
— information and area maps computerised and coherent for transmitted sites
       
N
E
T
H
E
R
L
A
N
D
S
76
28
6.7% l.a.
11.1% m.a.
7,330
3,448
96.44
123.14
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms complete for transmitted sites
— classification incomplete
— incomplete information or partial transmission; area maps complete for transmitted sites
       
P
O
R
T
U
G
A
L
65
36
12.6% l.a.
0.6% m.a.
12,150
3,323
186.92
92.30
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms complete for transmitted sites
— classification incomplete
— incomplete information or partial tranmission; area maps complete for transmitted sites
  65 official pSCIs/91 shadow SCIs All 91 shadow sites are very important for conservation and should be included in the official list. The ones that are not are thus potentially threatened.
S
P
A
I
N
588
170
13.9%70,250
33,191
119.47
195.24
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps complete for transmitted sites but Natura 2000 forms incomplete or partially transmitted
— classification incomplete
— incomplete information and area maps or partial transmission
     Yes. There are cases of pSCIs (and existing SPAs) threatened by damaging projects but number or source of threat difficult to say.
S
W
E
D
E
N
1.449
275
9.3% 42,241
22,658
29.15
82.39
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps complete for transmitted sites but Natura 2000 forms incomplete or partially transmitted
— classification incomplete
— no transmission of information; area maps complete for transmitted sites
       
U
K
330
180
3.4% l.a.
3.6% m.a.
16,877
7,493
51.14
41.62
— substantial national list but information still incomplete
— site maps and Natura 2000 forms complete for transmitted sites
— classification incomplete
— incomplete information or partial tranmission; area maps complete for transmitted sites
all pSCIs are already protected under the UK 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act according to WWF-UK's sample shadow list, the official list should be three times bigger than it is now Yes. A number of pSCIS which are under threat have not been sent to the Commission others have (eg, Cairngorms).


  Source: WWF National Organisations (for Portugal: WWF-MEDPO, for Ireland: Irish Peatland Conservation Council), the European Commission, DGXI.D.2.

  Notes:

  (i)    For bold figures of officially transmitted SCIs, Commission figures have been used in preference to National Organisations'. Some NOs give a pSCI figure that includes sites that have the double status of pSCI/SPA.
  (ii)   "New quality" is derived from a comparison of the number of pSCIs that are already somehow protected with the number of pSCIs that will gain new protection from their inclusion in Natura 2000.
  (iii)  "Shadow lists/sites" as produced by WWF NOs.

  Status of implementation of Natura 2000 in the EU Member States— December 1998



STATUS OF IMPELEMENTATION OF NATURA 2000 IN THE EU MEMBER STATES
2.  Communications on HD/Natura 2000 3.  Legal aspects 4.  Financial aspects
M
 
S
T
A
T
E
Access to informationSpecific info from M.S. authorities to stakeholders of proposed SCIs? M.S. general communications on Natura 2000 to the public? Status and accuracy of legal transposition of the HD in national law? Known current complaints for breaches to the HD? M.S. budget for nature conservation? LIFE funding going to pSCIs?
A
U
S
T
R
I
A
rather goodonly in regions where conservation projects are already running, stakeholders have been informed a folder has been made by the Länder governments. Some organised workshops and information events HD has not yet been transposed into the national law on hunting and fishing. Only 4 Länder governments have sufficiently transposed the HD in their nature conservation laws. 3 complaints concerning 3 important sites in Austria (Lechtal, Obere Drau, Ennstal) 408 million Schilling434 million Schilling
B
E
L
G
I
U
M
rather bad   nononot known 1,360 million BF (Walloon and Flemish Regions only)   
D
E
N
M
A
R
K
rather goodonly through the press but a programme of information (general) to stakeholders has been initiated by the Ministry through newspapers, a new Internet page has been launched:
www.sns.dk/natur/
habitat; a book is planned
as of 15 November, a new special regulation for the Birds Directive/Ramsar sites and the HD enters into force. no answerimpossible to assess but not much
F
I
N
L
A
N
D
rather goodyesyes: tens of conferences, maps, leaflets, both at local and national level has been transposed fully and accurately someonly for implementation of HD: 3.2 billion FIM 75 million FIM for last three years
F
R
A
N
C
E
rather goodyes, it has been done no informationa new law proposed will nearly complete the juridical system no informationincrease of the overall environment budget in 1999: 110% (will reach 0.3% of the M.S. budget); increase of the nature protection budget:+22% (amounting to 654.5 million FF) no information
G
E
R
M
A
N
Y
rather badno answerBad: Natura 2000 is considered a threat to economic development yesno answerLänder competence, so difficult to get the figures no information
G
R
E
E
C
E
rather goodNot really.
There is still a lot of confusion about the future of pSCIs.
A series of one-day conferences was orgainsed in each prefecture for relevant sites; maps and information accordingly No, has not been transposed. Greece is going to receive a formal notice for failing to notify measures to implement the HD— despite a court ruling against it in June 1997 in 1997: 4 complaints, WWF involved in one of them (Nestos river). 1998: no data but WWF involved in 2 new complaints submitted at the end of the year 0.09% of the MS budget allocated to environment through the Community Support Framework 16 projects that started from 1995 onwards with a total budget of 18,624,224 ECUs (EU covers from 65-75%)
I
R
E
L
A
N
D
non-existentFor SPAs only and rather badly They have, rather badly, on SCIs and SPAs The HD has been transposed in the European Communities Regulations 1997, but until the sites are officially designated, the regulation will not come into force approximately 10 complaints and a European Court ruling is due in December 1998 24 Irish Pounds × 10,000,000 in 1998 (Book of Estimates) contract 1-1-96 to 31-3-1999: 879,800 ECUs from the EU
I
T
A
L
Y
non-existent noNo. In Italy, the only awareness raising project about Natura 2000 is the one carried out by WWF It is not well definedno official data for the last available year, 1995, the Environment budget was 2,443,000,000 Italian Liras. Since 1992, 67 LIFE projects have been financed. 50% in Natura 2000 sites. LIFE amount for 1997: ECU 4,702,905
L
U
X
E
M
B
O
U
R
G
no dataidid ididid id
N
E
T
H
E
R
L
A
N
D
S
nanana nananana
P
O
R
T
U
G
A
L
rather badnono yes, the HD is already transposed into the national law directly from the Directive currently none, because NGOs and the general public have no info about the process, so it seems that everything is all right but it is not. 0.35% of the national budget goes to the ICN (the Portugese Nature Conservation Institute) In 1998, the LIFE/Nature has ECU 6,000,000 for 4 pSCIs in Portugal and 3 pSCIs in Azores/Madeira. Last years' biggest project funded was the ICN ECU 7,000,000 project of defining the SCIs reference list
S
P
A
IN
rather bad not yetsome regional governments have organised meetings with NGOs etc. Otherwise nothing. No. Article 12 is not correctly transposed Not knownimpossible to calculate 11.23 million ECU of LIFE projects in Spain during 1994-1997
(4 years). All LIFE/Nature projects must be in SPAs/SCIs
S
W
E
D
E
N
nanana     the Government is increasing the budget for new protected areas (90% goes to forest protection) and will spend more or less 500 Million SKr annually in the future. (But only some of the WWF forest shadow sites are likely to be included in Natura 2000)   
U
K
rather good Yes. The UK consults "owners and occupiers" about the pSCIs but it is not sure whether it includes all stakeholders The UK hosted a Conference "Natura 2000— a Partnership" in Bath, in June 98 + various publications. But the Government was not positive about involvement in WWF-UK's workshops on "raising understanding about the HD". This will be pursued. The HD has been transposed into UK law via the "Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations" of 1994. There are inadequacies in this legislation which are the subject of a complaint to the EC (dated 1994) Not known how many in total. WWF currently has 4 complaints outstanding about the Cairngorms, Cardiff Bay, Orton Bricks and the transposition case. nana

  EU Habitats Directive-Status of implementation in Member States— WWF barometer— December 1998


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 2000