For the same change percent of the degree of conservation, action F22705 costs almost half compared to action F22711. The average provision cost to enhance 1% the conservation score of biodiversity through the both actions was estimated 15.6 € ha⁻¹ y⁻¹. Similarly, the average provision cost to maintain the conservation score of biodiversity through action F22712 was estimated to be 1.4 € ha⁻¹ y⁻¹ per tree. However, these costs may not be considered only as provision cost of biodiversity protection since the latter contribute to promoting other forest goods and services e.g. tourism and recreation, water quality, flood control and so on. In addition, biodiversity investments in Natura 2000 sites can be particularly important for local and regional economic development (See RDP objectives) since they provide direct and indirect local benefits such as employment. As such, the ecological and socio-economic benefits of biodiversity protection can be larger than the associated costs (Gantioler et al., 2010).

The results must be interpreted as a short term assessment of biodiversity actions indicating first impacts of biodiversity actions. Although the number of observation per action type is relatively small, this analysis provides certain results which should be tested on larger set of observations.

The methodology proposed in this research seems applied and promising. It presents several implications, of which:

- Provision cost function may be helpfully used to estimate compensation payments for any increase in biodiversity conservation score;

- Payments based on result (given change in biodiversity score) help to reduce information asymmetry between the both sides of contract especially when monitoring is rather complicated;

- Cost-effectiveness has not yet figured highly in European biodiversity conservation research and policy- making (Watzold and Schwerdtner, 2004). Such impact assessment and provision costs models may contribute to deal with cost-effectiveness issues in relation to conservation policies;

- Such impact assessment and provision costs models may contribute to deal with the cost-effective allocation of conservation fund in space and time;

- Applying such impact assessment models permit to identify the most effective and efficient market based instruments (e.g., compensation scheme, taxes, fees and charges, subsidies/support, tradable permits and eco-labelling and financial mechanisms) in different contexts;

- The proposed model distinguishes between maintenance (action F22712) and restoration costs (F22705 and F22711);
This methodology can be usefully applied for

- other European countries

- other biodiversity actions

- other forest externalities e.g., water regulation under Water Framework Directive

- or other environmental services under Rural Development Regulation;

Provision cost function provide a common basis (e.g., given change in biodiversity score) for estimating comparable marginal cost and value;

Comparable estimation of provision cost and value for forest externalities may provide
helpful information both for forest managers and policy makers.

Obtained results should be interpreted as a short term evaluation with small number of
observations. Long term monitoring of biodiversity actions and their impacts with larger number
of observation at intervention level will enable a more complete and precise evaluation of
intervention impacts. The existing and sampled data have not necessarily obtained through
similar sampling method with comparable precision. As such, the estimated change percent of
biodiversity score may not be quite exact but it seems to be the most precise measure accessible
at the finest scale. However, a permanent monitoring of conservation status at micro level over
time permits more precise comprehension and assessment of the impact of biodiversity actions.
Different market based instruments (MBIs) can be applied for biodiversity conservation. These
results was obtained using compensation payments under Natura 2000 contract. However, other
MBIs such as taxes, fees and charges, subsidies/support, tradable permits and eco-labelling and
financial mechanisms (e.g. green venture capital funds) can be used. The choice of MBIs may
also affect provision cost as well as effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity actions.
Generalizing this pilot research to include other biodiversity actions and other EU countries may
provide relevant information for policy and decision makers.
# Appendix 1: Questionnaire of telephone survey in French

Questionnaire d'enquête sur les contrats Natura 2000 forestiers auprès des animateurs des sites

## Objectif :

Mesurer l'effet de certaines actions en faveur de la biodiversité (Code PDRH, F22705, F22711 et F22712) sur les indicateurs correspondants.

Evaluer la perception des animateurs des sites quant à la contractualisation sur les sites Natura 2000

## Coordonnées du contrat en question :

N° contrat

N° du site Natura 2000

Nom de l'animateur

Coordonnées de l'animateur

Commune majoritaire sur laquelle le contrat est passé

## I) Questionnement général :

Méthode d'évaluation initiale de l'état de conservation (avant élaboration de contrat)

1. D'après FSD

2. À dire d'expert

3. Méthode Carnino

4. Autres (à préciser)

Période de mise en œuvre des actions du contrat ?

Numéro d'identification de la parcelle où l'action est mise en œuvre

(cadastrale ou le n° de la parcelle forestière)

Comment obtenir le plan du parcellaire forestier ?

Quelles sont les coordonnées de la personne correspondante ?
## II) Mesurer l'effet de certaines actions en faveur de la biodiversité sur les indicateurs correspondants :

Est-ce que les indicateurs ci-après sont mesurés avant et/ou après la mise en œuvre des actions dans les parcelles affectées par le contrat ?

Si oui, quelles sont les valeurs associées et l'an de la mesure ?

Nombre à l'hectare des très gros bois (ayant le diamètre 65< pour les feuillus et 70< pour les résineux)

Nombre à l'hectare des arbres morts (ayant le diamètre 35<=

Nom et pourcentage de la surface terrière de l'espèce exotique envahissante

Si non, est-il possible de mesurer ces indicateurs dans les parcelles où les actions ont été menées ?
(Au mois de Mai) Dans ce cas-là, qui est-ce la personne correspondante (morale ou physique) ?
Quelles sont ses coordonnées ?

Si l'action F22705 (travaux de marquage, d'abattage ou de taille sans enjeu de production) est mise en œuvre dans les parcelles affectées par le contrat ; s'applique-t-elle principalement aux petits bois ou gros bois ?

## III) Evaluer la perception des animateurs des sites quant à la contractualisation sur les sites Natura 2000

Est-ce que les actions en faveur de la biodiversité affectent visiblement d'autres services écosystemiques (par exemple, quantité et qualité de l'eau etc.) ? comment (positivement ou négativement) ? exemple le plus probant ?

Est-ce que ce contrat a été renouvelé ? Si oui, quand ? si non, pourquoi ?

D'après vous, quelles sont les motivations principales pour la contractualisation ?

Les montants par barème ou hors barème des actions sont-ils suffisants pour mener les actions ?

A part les coûts directs payés sous le contrat pour la mise en œuvre des actions, quel sont les coûts ignorés ? (par exemple, les coûts indirects ou d'opportunité etc.)

A part le paiement pour la mise en oeuvre des actions, quels sont les autres bénéfices de ces actions ?
(par exemple, avoir plus facilement un label de gestion durable comme FSC etc.)
References:

Affleck, D. L. 2008. A line intersect distance sampling strategy for downed wood inventory. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38, 2262:2273.

Affleck, D. L., Gregoire, T. G., and Valentine, H. T. 2005. Design unbiased estimation in line intersect sampling using segmented transects. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 12, 2, 139-154.

DG AGRI, 2006a. Handbook on Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (Guidance document), The European Evaluation Network for Rural Development. Brussel.

DG AGRI, 2006b. Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Guidance document, Glossary of Terms. The European Evaluation Network for Rural Development.

AGRI H4, 2009. Report on Implementation of Forestry Measures under the Rural Development Regulation 1698 / 2005 for the period 2007-2013, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Brussel.

Bensettiti, F., Trouvilliez, J., 2009. Rapport synthétique des résultats de la France sur l'état de conservation des habitats et des espèces conformément à l'article 17 de la directive habitats, Rapport SPN 2009/12, MNHN-DEGB-SPN. Paris.

Bia, M., Mattei, A., 2007. Application of the Generalized Propensity Score. Evaluation of public contributions to Piedmont enterprises. Department of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS, Working paper n. 89, The university of Piedmont Orientale. 92p.

Cantarello, E., Newton, A.C., 2008. Identifying cost-effective indicators to assess the conservation status of forested habitats in Natura 2000 sites. Forest Ecology and Management 256, 815-826.

Carnino, N., 2009a. État de conservation des habitats d'intérêt communautaire à l'échelle du site - Guide d'application de la méthode d'évaluation des habitats forestiers, Muséum national d'histoire naturelle/ office national des forêts. Paris.

Carnino, N., 2009b. État de conservation des habitats d'intérêt communautaire à l'échelle du site - Méthode d'évaluation des habitats forestiers, Muséum national d'histoire naturelle/ Office National des Forêts. Paris.

Cottam, G., and Curtis, J. 1956. The use of distance measure in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37, 451-460.
Dehejia, R.H., Wahba, S., 2002. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics 84, 151-161.

Demoly, T., 2010. Recueil et analyse de données environnementales sur les sites Natura 2000 français. Analyse descriptive des outils contractuels et état des lieux de la contractualisation en France. AgroParisTech, ENGREF, LERFOB.

EC, 2003. Natura 2000 and Forests “Challenges and Opportunities”: Interpretation Guide, Directorate-General for the Environment. Luxembourg.

EUSTAFOR, Patterson, T., 2011. Ecosystem Services in European State Forests, The European State Forest Association (EUSTAFOR). Brussels.

Elliott, J., 2010. Defra Rural Development Programme for England 2007 - 2013 (Mid Term Evaluation), The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). London.

Evalsed, 2012. Evalsed (Evaluation of Socio-Economic Development) Glossary [WWW Document]. European Commission, Regional policy, Evaluation of Socio-Economic Development. URL http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/evalsed/glossary/index_en.htm

Evans, D., Arvela, M., 2012. Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive Explanatory Notes & Guidelines for the period 2007-2012, European Topic Center on Biological Diversity, Habitats Committee.

FAO, 2006. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 Progress towards sustainable forest management, Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome.

Ferris, R., Humphrey, J.W., 1999. A review of potential biodiversity indicators for application in British forests. Forestry 72, 313-328.

Gantioler, S., Rayment, M., Bassi, S., Kettunen, M., McConville, A., Landgrebe, R., Gerdes, H., Brink, P. ten, 2010. Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network, Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic. Brussels.

Hermoso Barroso, L., 2012. Calculating the management costs of Natura 2000 in Spain; needs analysis and funding availability in EU. Master thesis. Agroparistech, Engref. 40p.
Imai, K., Dyk, D.A.V., 2004. Causal Inference with General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99, 854-866.

Kengen, S., 1997. Forest Valuation for Decision Making Lessons of experience and proposals for improvement. FAO, Rome.

Kleijn D. and Sutherland W. J. 2003. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology. 40: 947

Levrel, H., 2007. Quels indicateurs pour la gestion de la biodiversité? Quels indicateurs pour la gestion de la biodiversité?, Institut Français de la Biodiversité. Paris.

Lukesch, R., Schuh, B. (eds), 2010. Working paper on approaches for assessing the impacts of the Rural Development Programmes in the context of multiple intervening factors, The European Evaluation Network for Rural Development, DG Agri, The European Commission.

MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

MEDDTL, 2007. ANNEXE I: Liste des actions contractuelles de gestion des sites Natura 2000 éligibles à un financement, Direction régionale de l'environnement, de l'aménagement et du logement, Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement (MEDDTL).

Marage, D., Delmas, M., 2008. Dix ans de mise en œuvre des documents d 'objectifs Natura 2000:analyses, bilans et perspectives. Revue forestière française LX, 25-36.

Mavsar, R., Ramčilović, S., Palahí, M., Weiss, G., Rametsteiner, E., Tykkä, S., Apeldoorn, R. van, Vreke, J., Wijk, M. van, Janse, G., Prokofieva, I., Rekola, M., Kuuluvainen, J., 2008. Study on the Development and Marketing of Non-Market Forest Products and Services. Report for DG AGRI, Contract No: 30-CE-0162979/00-21.

Miller, C., Kettunen, M., Torkler, P., 2006. Financing Natura 2000 Guidance Handbook, IEEP, WWF. European Commission.

Mitchell, K. 2007. Quantitative analysis by the point-centered quarter method. Tech. rep., New York.

NEWFOREX, 2009. New Ways to Value and Market Forest Externalities, Project description, Seventh Framework Program Theme 2, European Commission.
Navrud, S., 2010. Best Practice Guidelines in Benefit Transfer, COST action E45, EUROFOREX.

Nemec, A., and Davis, G. 2002. Efficiency of six line intersect sampling designs for estimating volume and density of coarse woody debris. Tech. Rep. TR-021, Res. Sec., Van. For. Reg.

Raulund-rasmussen, K., Katzensteiner, K., Klimo, E., Loustau, D., Gundersen, P., Humphrey, J., Jong, J.D., 2011. State of the art report on operational defined indicators to assess impacts of management on key EU forest environmental services, EFORWOOD, EFI Technical Report 55. Joensuu.

Rekola, M., 2003. Incommensurability and uncertainty in contingent valuation: willingness to pay for forest and nature conservation policies in Finland. PhD Dissertation, Department of Forest Economics, University of Helsinki.

Rheinhardt, R., Brinson, M. M., Fleming, N. E., and Sandifer, J. G. 1997. Deciduous wetland flats interim HGM model. Tech. Rep. USDA.

Richard M. Engeman, Robert T. Sugihara, Larry F. Pank, and William E. Dusenberry. A. 1994. comparison of plotless density estimators using Monte Carlo simulation. Ecology, 75(6):1769-1779.

Richards, K., Stokes, C., 2004. A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Climatic Change 63, 1-48.

Romao, C., Reker J., Richard D., and Jones-Walters L. 2012. Protected areas in Europe — an overview, Technical report, European Environment Agency, n°5, 130 p.

Samuel L. Beasom and Harry H. Haucke. 1975. A comparison of four distance sampling techniques in south texas live oak mottes. Journal of Range Management, 28(2):142-144.

SFC, 2008. Valuation and Compensation Methods for Non-wood Forest Goods and Services, Report to the Standing Forestry Committee (SFC), SFC ad hoc Working Group on Valuation and Compensation Methods for Non-wood Forest Goods and Services.

Shimatani, K., Kawarasaki, S., Manabe, T., 2008. Describing size-related mortality and size distribution by nonparametric estimation and model selection using the Akaike Bayesian Information Criterion. Ecological Research 23, 289-297.
Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group, 2004. The SER International primer on ecological restoration, www.ser.org and Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration International.

Spanos, K.A., Feest, A., 2007. A review of the assessment of biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 18, 475 - 486.

Stenger, A., Harou, P., Navrud, S., 2009. Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests. Journal of Forest Economics 15, 1-14.

Stenger, A., Marage, D., Demoly, T., Garcia, S., Niedzwietz, A., 2011. Efficacité des mécanismes incitatifs en forêt sur les sites Natura 2000 en France, Rapport d'avancement n° 1, Laboratoire d'Économie Forestière (LEF), UMR INRA/AgroParisTech-ENGREF. Nancy.

Stork, N.E., Boyle, T.J.B., Dale, V., Eeley, H., Finegan, B., Lawes, M., Manokaran, N., 1997. Criteria and Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability of Forest Management: Conservation of Biodiversity. Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR), Working paper 17.

The World Bank, 2004. Sustaining Forests A Development Strategy, Journal of Development Economics. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Thiene, M., Signorello, G., Salvo, M.D., 2011. Best Practice Guidelines On Economic Valuation of Forest Externalities with Revealed Preference Methods, Action E45, European Forest Externalities (EUROFOREX).

Watzold F. and Schwerdtner, K. 2004. Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European biodiversity conservation policy. Biological Conservation 123 (2005) 327-338.

WWF, 2010. Living Planet Report 2010. WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature.

Wunder, J., Brzeziecki, B., Żybura, H., Reineking, B., Bigler, C., Bugmann, H., 2008. Growth mortality relationships as indicators of life-history strategies: a comparison of nine tree species in unmanaged European forests. Oikos 117, 815-828.