Integration of Natura 2000 into EU funding

Transcription

1 Integration of Natura 2000 into EU funding Results of the study of "The N2K Group" Expert Group on the Management Brussels, 18 April 2016

2 16 Member States and regions 101 programmes RDPs, ERDF, CF, ESF, EMFF

3 Sweden Finland Germany/ MVP Estonia UK/ England Poland France/ Burgundy Slovakia Romania Bulgaria Portugal Spain/ Aragon Italy/ Sardinia Slovenia Greece Cyprus

4 Scope of the study General information about the MFF Analysis of OPs for all the funds Examples of good practice Short case studies Comparisons between MS/regions Aggregated data (e.g. per types of measures) Info about allocations (where possible) Info about consultations Info about complementarity

5 Natura 2000: Integration in the RDPs M01 - Knowledge transfer and information actions (art. 14) M02 - Advisory services, farm management (art. 15) M04 - Investments in physical assets and farm relief services (art. 17) M07 - Basic services and village renewal in rural areas (art. 20) M08 - Investments in forest area development and improvement of the viability of forests (art ) M10 - Agri-environment-climate (art. 28) M11 - Organic farming (art. 29) M12- Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments (art. 30) M13 - Payments to areas facing natural or other specific constraints (art. 31) M15 - Forest-environmental and climate services and forest conservation (art. 34) M16 - Co-operation (art. 35)

6 Forest measures only in half of the RDPs Not enough soft measures Allocations too small Not enough consistency with (RDPs not traslate the PAF p Forest measures only in half IAS control "Soft measures" (training, communication) All RDPs address N2000 Broad consistency with the PAFs

7 Agri-environment-climate

8 Information based on table 11.4 in the RDPs Not possible to provide info for all MS/regions Clear gaps between the RDPs and PAFs

9 Indicators: land under management contracts Priority 4a: surface and percentage of agricultural and forest land under management contracts supporting biodiversity in 2023

10 European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) Less developed regions/ms have used the opportunity Good integration of measures for non-agri habitats and species (freshwater) Connectivity, capacity building/knowledge base Some MS/regions (FI, SE, MVP-DE) did not use TO6(d) Indicators not well adapted to track progress Not enough allocations (on average less than 2%)

11

12 EU contribution to Natura 2000 and biodiversity in the ERDF and CF OPs and financial needs for Natura 2000 (PAFs; in million EUR) Natura Operational Total EU EU contribution 2000 Programmes contribution in to categories % needs (ERDF and CF) the OPs (PAF) ARAGON N.A. BULGARIA 1, ,718 BURGUNDY N.A. CYPRUS ENGLAND 3, ,988 ESTONIA 3, FINLAND 1, ,604 GREECE 8, MECKLENBURG- VORP POLAND 58, ,621 PORTUGAL 10, ROMANIA 16, ,527 SARDINIA N.A SLOVAKIA 5, SLOVENIA 3, ,627 SWEDEN 859, ,246 N.A.

13 Targets and indicators BURGUNDY OP ERDF BULGARIA OP Environment GREECE - OP Transport and environment GREECE - OP West. Macedonia GREECE OP Central Macedonia POLAND OP Infrastructure and environment SARDINIA OP ERFD SLOVAKIA OP Environment Increase in the biotopes in a better condition with additional 6,800 km million ha of species and habitats in Natura 2000 with improved conservation status An increase in the protected Natura 2000 areas by 80% Protect additional 60,000 ha of the Natura 2000 sites Protection of additional 530,000 ha of the Natura 2000 sites 100% of the Natura 2000 sites covered by management plans Reducing the surface of Sardinia's Natura 2000 sites with a relatively low degree of conservation under 6% Total surface area of rehabilitated land: 452 ha %/no. of habs/spp. with improved CS (BG, PT, Sardinia, SK, SI; % of N2000 with man. plans (PL, GR, BG). No. of sites with operational admin structure (RO). Ha of sites covered by actions to improve CS (PT, SK, GR, EE, BG, Sardinia, RO, Burgundy, SI, PL). Ha of water bodies under measures to improve ecological status (SI) No of projects to preserve/restore wetlands and corridors (Burgundy).

14 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) all OPs include measures for nature and biodiversity some OPs: measures for inland waters no indicators at the level of specific objectives or measures not possible to know resources allocated to N2000 Output indicators provided in some OPs (e.g. number of projects) Results indicators (increase in the coverage of Natura 2000)

15 EMFF OP EMFF contribution ( ) to TO Bulgaria 27,184,818 Cyprus 23,404,651 Estonia 24,707,255 Finland 38,263,645 France 213,906,395 Germany 113,340,225 Greece Italy Poland 149,790,336 Portugal 106,781,617 Romania 37,052,701 Slovakia 2,167,880 Slovenia 8,166,308 Spain Sweden 83,747,089 UK 143,456,513

16 European Social Fund (ESF) capacity building for N2000 information and education, creation of new jobs and green business (e.g. BG, PL, RO). very little integration of nature and biodiv not possible to estimate allocations targets and indicators very generic no specific indicators

17 Complementary use of EU funds some examples of good integration and complementary use of funds (BG, SK,CY) broad consistency with the PAFs some integration into other TOs forests, freshwater, marine and coastal habitats poorly covered species needs often missing education, training, information, communication often missing allocation not sufficient

18 Allocations to Natura 2000 and biodiversity and financial needs estimated in the PAF

19 Conclusions Better integration in the RDPs than other OPs PAFs helpful but not sufficiently covered Complementarity not used fully Allocation not possible to show precisely Targets and indicators often not adapted to monitor progress

20 ura2000/financing/index_en.htm

21 Contact: For more information, please consult: