Report from the Commission on the implementation of the Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [SEC(2003) 1478]
Date: 2004-01-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, biotope, environmental protection, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 5.1.2004
COM(2003) 845 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

on the implementation of the Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora

[SEC(2003) 1478]

EN

  EN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

1.1.

1.2.

1.3.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

Introduction...................................................................................................................4

Background to this report .............................................................................................4

The reporting process established in the Directive.......................................................5

Structure of the report ...................................................................................................6

The Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC ...............................................................................8

Aims of the Directive....................................................................................................8

Main provisions of the Directive ..................................................................................8

2.2.1.

Special Areas of Conservation and Natura 2000 ..........................................................9

2.2.2.

Establishing a system of strict protection for animal and plant species .....................10

2.2.3. Other general provisions.............................................................................................11

2.3.

Legal clarifications .....................................................................................................11

3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

4.

EU level Implementation Activities ...........................................................................12

Dealing with legal infringements................................................................................13

LIFE-Nature funding ..................................................................................................13

Financing Natura 2000................................................................................................14

Preparing for Enlargement..........................................................................................15

Overview of Implementation in the Member States...................................................16

4.1.

Establishing the Natura 2000 network........................................................................16

4.1.1.

Proposed sites of Community importance (pSCIs).....................................................16

4.1.2. Conservation measures ...............................................................................................20

4.1.3. Co-financing under the Directive ...............................................................................21

4.1.4.

Surveillance ................................................................................................................22

4.2.

Protection of species ...................................................................................................23

4.2.1.

Establishing strict systems of protection ....................................................................23

4.2.2.

Taking in the wild and derogations ............................................................................24

4.3.

Other general issues ....................................................................................................25

4.3.1. Research efforts ..........................................................................................................25

4.3.2. Re-introductions and introductions.............................................................................25

4.3.3.

Education and information..........................................................................................26

2

 
4.3.4.

Planning to encourage the management of landscape features...................................26

4.3.5. Human resources.........................................................................................................27

5.

Conclusions.................................................................................................................28

5.1.

Conservation of habitats and species ..........................................................................28

5.1.1.

Site selection...............................................................................................................28

5.1.2.

Site protection.............................................................................................................29

5.1.3.

Site management.........................................................................................................29

5.1.4.

Site conservation measures.........................................................................................30

5.2.

5.3.

5.4.

Species protection .......................................................................................................30

Resources (human and financial)................................................................................30

Reporting under the Directive.....................................................................................30

3

 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION

on the implementation of the Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora

Part I Composite Report on Overall Progress Achieved

1. 

INTRODUCTION

1.1. 

Background to this report

Biological diversity, essential for the maintenance of life on Earth, is being lost on a
global  level  at  a  rate  higher  than  at  any  other  time  in  the  past,  according  to  the
UNEP’s Global Biodiversity Assessment. The same document states that in some EU
Member  States  up  to  24%  of  the  species  of  certain  groups  such  as  butterflies,  birds
and mammals are presently extinct.

In  its  own  assessment  of  the  situation,  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)
concluded  that  this  decline  of  biodiversity  in  the  EU  was  due  mostly  to  highly
intensive,  partially  industrial  forms  of  agricultural  and  silvicultural  land  use,  an
increased  fragmentation  of  remaining  natural  habitats  by 
infrastructure  and
urbanisation,  exposure  to  mass  tourism  and  pollution  of  water  and  air.  The  EEA
concluded  that,  given  the  projected  growth  in  economic  activity,  the  rate  of  loss  of
biodiversity is far more likely to increase than stabilise.

It  is  in  this  framework  that  the  EU  approved  in  1998  a  biodiversity  strategy  that
recognised  the  EU’s  leading  role  in  furthering  the  objectives  of  the  Convention  on
Biological  Diversity  and  set  out  the  framework  in  which  Community  policies  and
instruments contribute to that purpose.

The  strategy  sets  objectives  in  a  number  of  policy  areas  of  which  the  first  is  the
conservation of natural resources. Two key objectives identified under this policy area
are  full  implementation  of  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  (92/43/EEC  and
79/409/EEC respectively), and support to the establishment of networks of designated
areas, particularly the EU Natura 2000 network.

At  the  Göteborg  European  Council  of  June  2001,  EU  heads  of  state  agreed  the
challenging  objective  of  halting  the  decline  of  biodiversity  by  2010.  The  means  to
achieve  this  target  were  elaborated  in  the  Sixth  Environmental  Action  Plan  decided
upon  by  Council  and  Parliament  in  July  2002.  At  a  global  level,  the  Johannesburg
World  Summit  on  Sustainable  Development  Plan  of  Implementation  calls  for  a
significant  reduction  of  the  current  rate  of  loss  of  biological  diversity  by  2010.  The
EU  is  working  with  the  EEA  on  development  of  a  set  of  indicators  against  which
progress towards the 2010 objective may be monitored.

4

 
Effective implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives and the establishment
of  the  Natura  2000  network  are  critical  to  meeting  the  EU  and  global  2010  targets.
Information  on  progress  with  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  will  be  a  vital
contribution  to  the  monitoring  of  progress  against  the  broader  set  of  biodiversity
implementation indicators now under development.

This report provides a comprehensive overview of progress to date. While there have
been  serious  delays  in  implementation,  the  recent  progress  provides  ground  for
optimism  with  regard  to  the  habitat  protection  requirements  of  the  Directive.  The
situation  concerning  species  protection  measures  is  less  positive  and  the  report
indicates clearly the need for higher priority in this area.

1.2. 

The reporting process established in the Directive

Article  17  of  the  Habitats  Directive  provides  the  framework  for  the  submission  of
information  on  progress  in  implementation  of  the  Directive:  Member  States  are
required  to  draw  up  implementation  reports  every  six  years  following  the  date  at
which the Directive came into force, with the first report due to cover the period from
June 1994 to May 20001.

Article  17  of  the  Directive  sets  out  the  framework  for  the  time,  content  and  the
compilation  and  distribution  of  a  composite  version  of  these  national  reports.  The
national reports are to contain, in particular, information on the implementation of the
measures  taken  under  the  Directive,  as  well  as  an  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  these
measures  on  the  conservation  status  of  the  natural  habitat  types  of  Annex  I  and  the
species in Annex II.

The  European  Commission  is  to  draft  a  ‘composite  report’  based  on  the  national
reports. The composite report is to contain an evaluation of progress achieved and, in
particular,  of  the  contribution  that  Natura  2000  has  made  to  the  achievement  of
‘favourable conservation status’ of habitats and habitats of species. After submission
to  the  Habitats  Committee2,  the  composite  report  is  to  be  published  by  the
Commission,  not  later  than  two  years  after  all  Member  State  reports  have  been
received. The report will be forwarded by the Commission to the Member States, EU
institutions and made available to the public3.

Due  to  delays  in  implementation  of  the  Directive,  and  in  order  to  harmonise  the
reporting  period  with  that  provided  for  under  the  Birds  Directive,  the  Habitats

1

2

3

The Habitats Directive was adopted on 21 May 1992 and transmitted to Member States on 5
June 1992, entering into force 2 years later, in June 1994.
The  Habitats  Committee  is  the  Committee  set  up  under  Art.  20  of  the  Habitats  Directive  to
assist the Commission on issues concerning implementation of the Directive.
Art.  17(2)  specifies  the  relevant  Community  institutions  as  the  European  Parliament,  the
Council and the Social and Economic Committee. Since the Habitats Directive was approved
the EU institutions have expanded to include the Committee of the Regions. This and future
composite  reports  will  be  forwarded  to  all  relevant  EU  institutions  and  will  be  made  public
through the European Commission’s website.

5

 
                                                
Committee agreed to extend  the reporting  period  for  the  first  national  reports  to  the
end of 2000. To allow time for drafting, the deadline for submitting national reports
was set at the end of September 2001.

The  Habitats  Committee  also  agreed  a  set  of  guidelines  for  drafting  the  national
reports, including a list of questions to be addressed. In relation to the first reporting
period (1994-2000), it was agreed that:

(cid:1)  Member  States  should  focus  on  experiences,  notably  the  successes  and  the
difficulties encountered during the first years of the Directive’s implementation;

(cid:1)  due  to  the  absence  of  Community  lists  of  sites,  those  aspects  of  the  reports
concerned with the conservation of natural habitats and habitats of species should
focus  on  proposed  sites  of  Community  importance,  with  information  to  be
provided generally rather than individually by sites; and

(cid:1)  as regards the protection of species, only  general information should  be provided

on legislation, monitoring and research.

Several of the national reports have included information on developments that took
place after the  end of the  reporting  period.  For this reason,  and since the process of
implementation  of  the  Directive  is  ongoing,  this  document,  while  illustrating  the
situation  at  the  end  of  2000  also  includes  information  on  major  subsequent
developments where this information exists.

1.3. 

Structure of the report

This report is divided into two main parts:

(cid:1)  Part I – composite report on overall progress achieved

(cid:1)  Part II – summary national reports

Part  I  contains  the  main  evaluation  of  progress  achieved,  particularly  in  relation  to
Natura  2000  over  the  period  1994  to  2000.  The  present  section  introduces  the
reporting context. A brief outline of the aims and provisions of the Directive is given
in Section 2, including relevant case law. Section 3 presents an overview of EU level
implementation  activities.  The  main  analysis  of  Member  State  implementation  is
given in Section 4, based on the official national reports submitted and supplemented
by available official information. Key conclusions and recommendations are made in
Section  5,  with  a  view  to  strengthening  the  implementation  process  further,  as
necessary.

6

 
Separate  sections  reviewing  implementation  of  the  Directive  in  each  of  the  15
Member  States  are  presented  in  Part  II.  The  sections  follow  a  common  structure,
aimed at identifying key measures taken under the Directive, and the impact of these
measures on the conservation status of habitats and species. The ‘national’ sections in
Part  II  were  drafted  by  one  or  more  consultants  with  specialist  knowledge  of  the
Habitats  Directive  in  the  Member  State  concerned.  In  preparing  each  section,  the
authors have drawn on the official national reports submitted by the Member States.
Interpretation  of  the  national  reports  was  aided  by  discussions  with  selected
governmental  and  non-governmental  experts,  as  well  as  Commission  officials.  As
provided  for  in  Article  17  of  the  Directive,  these  sections  have  been  scrutinised  by
each  Member  State  to  verify  that  the  factual  content  is  accurate  and  that  the
interpretation of information provided in the national  reports has not misrepresented
the factual information.

7

 
2. 

THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC

2.1. 

Aims of the Directive

The main aim of the Habitats Directive is ‘to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity
through  the  conservation  of  natural  habitats  and  of  wild  fauna  and  flora  in  the
European  territory  of  the  Member  States  to  which  the  treaty  applies.’  Specifically,
Member  States  are  to  maintain  or  restore,  at  favourable  conservation  status,  natural
habitats and species of wild flora and fauna of Community interest (Article 2).

A ‘coherent European ecological network’ of sites – Natura  2000  –  is  to  enable  the
maintenance  or  restoration  of  natural  habitat  types  and  the  habitats  of  species  at
favourable conservation status (Article 3). The  ecological coherence  of Natura 2000
can be improved through the management of landscape features of major importance
to wild fauna and flora (Article 10). The protection of flora and fauna species is also
to  be  secured  through  the  establishment  of  systems  of  strict  protection  for  species
throughout  their  natural  range  (Articles  12-16).  The  Directive  contains  a  number  of
supporting  provisions  on  surveillance  and  monitoring,  re-introducing  native  species,
introductions of non-native species, research and education.

2.2.  Main provisions of the Directive

The  broad  aims  of  the  Directive  are  to  be  delivered  using  three  main  strategies:
development of a coherent ecological network of areas designed to protect the habitats
and species of Community interest, species protection and the various supplementary
provisions. The timetable for transposing the Directive’s provisions into national law
and  deadlines  relating  to  establishing  special  areas  of  conservation  (SACs),  species
protection measures and reporting on implementation are given in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2

Formal Timetable for Implementing the Habitats Directive

Requirement

Article Legal Deadline

Formal transposition of Directive’s provisions

23(1)

10 June 1994

Conservation  of  natural  habitats  and  habitats  of
species

Transmission by  Member States  to Commission  of
proposed  national  lists  of  sites  of  Community
importance (SCIs)

4(1)

10 June1995

Adoption of list of sites of Community importance

4(3)

10 June 1998

8

 
Designation  of  adopted  SCIs  as  special  areas  of
conservation (SACs)

4(4)

years 

6 
adoption of list

after

Protection of species

Establishment  of  strict  system  of  protection  for
plant and animal species

12 - 16

10 June 1994

Implementation reports

National implementation reports to be drawn up and
submitted to the Commission

17(1)

10June 20004

Publication  of 
implementation report

the  Commission’s  composite

17(2)

2  years  after  receipt
of national reports5

2.2.1. 

Special Areas of Conservation and Natura 2000

A  central  element  of  the  Directive  relates  to  the  establishment,  safeguard  and
management  of  special  areas  of  conservation  (SACs),  as  part  of  the  Natura  2000
network6.  Each  Member  State  is  to  designate  sites  as  SACs,  based  on  a  two-stage
process involving the Member States and the Commission, as follows.

(cid:1)  Stage  1  -  Member  States  are  to  forward  a  list  of  proposed  sites  of  Community
importance  (pSCIs),  selected  on  the  basis  of  criteria  set  out  in  Annex  III  of  the
Directive and relevant scientific information.

(cid:1)  Stage 2 – on the basis of criteria set out in Annex III, and in the framework of the
biogeographical  regions  and  the  EU  territory  as  a  whole,  the  Commission  is  to
establish,  in  agreement  with  each  Member  State,  a  list  of  sites  of  Community
importance  (SCIs) drawn  from  the  Member  States’  lists,  identifying  sites  hosting
priority natural habitat types or species.

Member  States  then  have  up  to  six  years  to  designate  the  areas  as  Special  Areas  of
Conservation (SACs) (Article 4(4)).

4

5

6

Modified to September 2001 by decision of the Habitats Committee on 26 June 2000
Since  the  last  national  report  was  sent  to  the  Commission  only  on  6  December  2002,  this
would set the deadline for the Commission’s composite report at December 2004.
The  Natura  2000  network  comprises  both  SACs  designated  under  the  provisions  of  the
Habitats Directive and special protection areas (SPAs) classified under the provisions  of  the
Birds Directive.

9

 
                                                
Once  agreed  as  a  ‘site  of  Community  importance’  (SCI)  on  the  Commission’s  list,
Member  States  are  to  take  appropriate  steps  to  avoid  the  deterioration  of  natural
habitats  and  the  habitats  of  species,  as  well  as  the  disturbance  of  species  for  which
areas have been selected (Article 6(2)). Any plan or project likely to have a significant
effect is to be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site (Article
6(3)).  If  the  assessment  is  negative  and  there  are  no  alternatives,  but  the  project  or
plan is necessary for ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’, Member States
are to take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence
of Natura 2000 is protected (Article 6(4)). Where the site hosts a priority habitat type
or  priority  species,  the  reason  for  going  ahead  must  be  related  to  human  health  or
public  safety,  be  beneficial  to  the  environment,  or,  further  to  an  opinion  of  the
Commission, relate to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

For  sites  formally  designated  as  SACs,  Member  States  are  in  addition  required  to
establish  the  necessary  conservation  measures,  for  example,  management  plans,
statutory,  administrative  or  contractual  measures,  reflecting 
their  ecological
requirements (Article 6(1)).

2.2.2.  Establishing a system of strict protection for animal and plant species

Member States are also obliged to set up a system of strict protection for animal and
plant  species  of  Community  interest  (Articles  12  and  13).  It  is,  for  example,
prohibited  to  deliberately  capture  or  kill  specimens  of  listed  animal  species7  in  the
wild,  or  to  deliberately  disturb  them,  particularly  during  their  breeding,  rearing,
hibernation and migration periods. Breeding sites and resting places must be protected
against  deterioration  and  destruction.  In  addition,  Member  States  are  obliged  to
establish a system to monitor the incidental capture or killing of animal species listed
in  Annex  IV  (a).  If  necessary,  further  research  and  conservation  measures  must  be
introduced to make sure that incidental killing or capturing does not have a significant
negative impact on the conservation status of the species (Article 12 (4)).

Taking  in  the  wild  of  certain  animal  and  plant  species  of  Community  interest
(specified  in  Annex  V)  as  well  as  their  exploitation  is  permitted  but  this  must  be
compatible  with  their  being  maintained  at  a  favourable  conservation  status  (Article
14). Where capture and killing of species is permitted, Member States are to prohibit
the use of all indiscriminate means of killing (Article 15).

If there is no alternative, a Member State can, under certain specified circumstances,
derogate from the provisions of Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15. Specified reasons include
protecting  wild  fauna  and  flora;  preventing  serious  damage  to,  for  example,  crops,
livestock, forests, etc.; protecting public health and safety or other imperative reasons
of  overriding  public  interest;  and  research  or  educational  purpose.  Derogations  may
be permitted, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and that the derogation
is  not  detrimental  to  the  favourable  conservation  status  of  species  in  their  natural
range. (Article 16).

7

Species protected under these provisions are listed in Annex IV of the Directive. Annex IV(a)
lists animals and Annex IV(b) lists the plant species concerned.

10

 
                                                
2.2.3.  Other general provisions

To  support  the  provisions  of  the  Directive,  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States
are  to  encourage  research  and  scientific  work,  with  particular  emphasis  on  work
necessary for site selection and the management of features of the landscape (Article
18). Member States should also study the desirability of re-introducing native Annex
IV species. The deliberate introduction of non-native  species is to be  regulated or if
necessary  prohibited.  Education  and  general  information  on  the  need  to  protect
species and conserve their habitats is to be promoted. (Article 22)

2.3. 

Legal clarifications

Since adoption of the Directive, certain provisions have been subject to examination
and clarification by the European Court of Justice. In particular, the Court has had the
opportunity  to  refine  the  criteria  for  selecting  proposed  sites  of  Community
importance  and  for  the  application  of  the  system  of  strict  protection  provided  for
under Article 12 of the Directive.

With  regard  to  the  first  point,  the  Court  of  Justice  has  brought  clarifications  to  the
implementation of the process to establish SACs. Thus, in November 2000 (C-371/98,
First  Corporate  Shipping  Ltd),  the  Court  found  that  a  ‘Member  State  may  not  take
account  of  economic,  social  and  cultural  requirements  or  regional  and  local
characteristics when selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be proposed
to the Commission as eligible for identification as sites of Community importance.

Moreover,  in  September  2001  (cases  C-67/99,  C-71/99  and  C-220/99,  -Commission
against Ireland, Germany and France respectively), the Court went further by starting
that the discretion afforded to Member States in drawing up lists of sites was limited
and subject to compliance with the criteria laid down in the Directive. The choice of
sites had to be based on scientific criteria only; the list had to be  complete;  and  the
sites  proposed  had  to  provide  a  geographical  cover,  which  was  homogenous  and
representative of the  entire territory of the  Member  State,  with  view to ensuring the
coherence and balance of the resulting network, Natura 2000.

With regard to the second point, the Court of Justice, in its ruling of 30 January 2002
in case C-103/00, Commission against Greece, has amongst others specified that the
Member States are obliged to assure an effective system of strict protection of species.

11

 
3. 

EU LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES

The European Commission has supported implementation of the Directive in a variety
of ways, using the threat of legal proceedings against Member States in breach of the
Directive,  but  also  providing  positive  encouragement  and  support  through  LIFE-
Nature  projects  and  other  activities.  The  latter  is  increasingly  also  being  targeted  at
the Candidate Countries as they prepare to join the EU.

The  wording  of  the  Directive  has  meant  that  several  key  provisions  would  benefit
from  further  clarification  or  elaboration.  To  facilitate  this  process,  the  Commission
has  developed  technical  guidance  documents  covering  different  aspects  of  the
Directive,  such  as  an  interpretation  manual  for  Article  68  and  methodological
guidance  on  Article  6(3)  and  6(4)  regarding  the  assessment  of  plans  and  projects9.
While these documents do not have a legal status, they provide a useful instrument to
ensure a consistent application by the Member States of the Provisions of Article 6.

A  series  of  working  groups  has  also  been  established  since  2000,  to  clarify  and
respond to specific aspects of the Directive. In 2002, such groups considered a range
of  topics,  including  hunting,  co-financing  under  Article  8,  species  protection  under
Article 12, communication and marine habitats and species.

In  May  2002,  the  ‘El  Teide  Declaration’  gave  renewed  political  support  to
implementing  Natura  2000,  and  particularly  the  management  of  the  network.  The
Declaration commits to finalising the full implementation of Natura 2000, promoting
a better understanding of Natura 2000 and the development of partnerships involving
the broad range of stakeholders in the conservation and management of sites. Support
is to be given to the sharing of experience and good practice in managing the network,
the  sustainable  use  and  management  of  areas  such  as  for  educational  and  research
purposes, and ensuring that the needs of Natura 2000 are effectively implemented in
other Community policies.

The  Declaration  was  made  by  the  Commissioner  for  the  Environment,  Margot
Wallström, and the Spanish Minister for the Environment, Jaume Matas, on behalf of
the Council. Environment ministers from all 13 EU candidate countries10 signed the
declaration in July 2002.

8

9

10

‘Managing  Natura  2000  sites,  the  provisions  of  Article  6  of  the  ‘Habitats’  Directive
92/43/EEC’
‘Assessment  of  plans  and  projects  significantly  affecting  Natura  2000  sites,  methodological
guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/ EEC’.
Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey

12

 
                                                
3.1. 

Dealing with legal infringements

Since 1994, the Commission has received large numbers of complaints concerning the
Habitats Directive, amounting to a significant percentage of all complaints relating to
all  EU  environmental  legislation.  In  cases  of  persistent  failure  to  implement  the
Directive, the Commission has initiated legal proceedings against Member States.

As a result of these legal proceedings, the European Court of Justice has ruled in three
cases  against  Member  States  for  failing  formally  to  transpose  provisions  of  the
Directive  within  the  required  time  period11.  There  have  also  been  three  rulings
regarding  the  failure  to  submit  complete  lists  of  proposed  sites  of  Community
importance and the associated information required by the Directive12. A first ruling
relating to the protection of species under Article 12 was given in 2002.13 Additional
infringement proceedings are under way against many Member States concerning the
lack of protection of proposed sites.

3.2. 

LIFE-Nature funding

Since 1992, the EU’s LIFE-Nature instrument14 has provided important co-financing
in  support  of  the  Habitats  Directive.  Projects  have  helped  develop  scientific
inventories,  prepare  the  ground  for  on-site  actions,  land  lease  or  acquisition,  the
restoration  or  improvement  of  sites,  and  public  awareness  raising  initiatives.
Assistance  has  also been  given  to  the  development  of  projects  involving  partners  in
several Member States, to support the exchange of experiences between projects, or to
support projects that focus on monitoring, evaluation and dissemination of results.

Box 3.2 Examples of LIFE-Nature Projects

The  aim  of  the  French  project  “Corsican  Flora”  15  (1994  -1997)  was  to  provide  a
sound basis for future conservation of the island’s flora. Corsica has a very rich flora,
including  12  priority  habitats  and  15  plant  species  (of  which  5  are  priority)  listed
under the Habitats Directive. For each of these a conservation management plan was
drawn  up,  as  well  as  a  global  plan  for  the  island.  The  inventory  covered  the  whole
island and included sites hitherto little known or as yet undiscovered in the interior of
the island, including forest habitats. Valuations of the land occupied by all the Natura
2000 sites were also made. The result was a complete set of information on the flora
of the island, which provides a basis for its long-term conservation management. The
project was part of a wider conservation plan for Corsica’s flora co-financed also by

11

12

13

14

15

legal 

transposition  (Greece  C-329/96),  (Germany  C-83/97)  and

Concerning  general 
transposition of Article 6(3) and (4) (France C-256/98)
Ireland C-67/99, Germany C-71/99 and France C-220/99
Case 103/00 (Greece) concerned Article 12(1)(b) and (d)
Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1973/92  of  21  May  1992,  followed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No
1655/2000  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  July  2000  concerning  the
Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) OJ L192, 28.07.2000, p.1.
« Conservation  des  habitats  naturels  et  des  espèces  végétales  d’intérêt  communautaire  de  la
Corse », reference B4-3200/94/752

13

 
                                                
the state and region.

The British project “Bittern Conservation Actions”  16 (1996 –  2000) executed  part
of the species action plan in the U.K. to restore the population from a critically  low
level.  Through  creation,  restoration  and  improvement  of  reed-bed  habitats  the
carrying  capacity  has  been  increased  to  25  bitterns,  equivalent  to  half  the  Species
Action Plan Target for 2010. Due to the time taken for new habitats to be colonised, it
will take around 10 years to see the full effects of the project. Most of the sites were
in eastern England and work was carried out in partnership with wetland management
agencies.

Project  experience  has  been  shared  with  European  partners  and  bittern  monitoring
programmes set up. European reed-bed management guidelines will be produced.

Due to problems encountered with land purchases, the target reed-bed creation had to
be reduced considerably. The action plan has been continued in a new project started
in  2002.  New  sites  have  been  identified  for  restoration  and  alternative  sites  are
foreseen for land purchase, should proposed purchases fall through..

Between  1994  and  2000,  418  projects  were  supported  with  a  total  budget  of
approximately €279 million. Between 2000 and 2004, the third LIFE period, a further
€300.8 million has been earmarked to co-finance nature conservation projects.

Regional  authorities  and  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  play  an  important
role in implementing the Habitats Directive given their local basis and expertise. They
have  consequently  received  a  significant  share  of  LIFE-Nature  funding,  while
partnerships  between  local  authorities,  NGOs  and  stakeholders  have  also  become
increasingly popular.

3.3. 

Financing Natura 2000

Article  8  of  the  Habitats  Directive  was  drafted  in  recognition  of  the  ‘exceptional
financial  burden’  that  Natura  2000  might  place  on  the  Member  States,  particularly
those rich in biodiversity. Article 8 therefore provides for Community co-financing of
measures  required  for  the  implementation  and  ongoing  management  of  priority
features of Natura 2000.

A Working Group on Article 8 (Co-financing) was established by the Commission in
December  2001,  with  the  purpose  of  assessing  more  comprehensively  the  legal

16

« Urgent actions for Botaurus stellaris (bittern) in the UK », reference B4-3200/96/551

14

 
                                                                                                                                           
implications of Article 8 and the financial costs of Natura 2000. The Working Group
undertook  a  detailed  assessment  of  current  and  estimated  future  expenditure  in  the
Member  States,  in  relation  to  Natura  2000.  The  estimate  was  based  on  existing
research studies and direct expenditure estimates supplied by the Member States. The
result, for the whole terrestrial network, is a range of average figures for the cost of
managing  Natura  2000  in  the  EU,  of  between  €3.4  billion  and  €5.7  billion  per  year
between  2003  and  2013.  The  cost  estimates  and  recommendations  regarding  future
the  preparation  of  a  Commission
co-financing  sources  are 
communication on co-financing that is expected in 2003.

to  assist  with 

3.4. 

Preparing for Enlargement

Much of the Commission’s work has focused on the existing EU Member States, but
attention  is  increasingly  also  being  given  to  preparations  for  enlargement  in  2004,
when central, eastern and southern European countries join the Union. The countries
will  make  a  significant  contribution  to  EU  biodiversity  and  bring  a  58  per  cent
increase in land area, with many unspoiled landscapes, forests and parks.

The main pre-accession activity has centred on amending the annexes of the Directive
to  reflect  the  approximately  173  additional  species  and  20  habitat  types  for  the  ten
countries.  The  Candidate  Countries  now  also  participate  as  observers  in  official
meetings, such  as the  meetings of the  Habitats  Committee.  Five  candidate  countries
(six as from 2002-03) from central and eastern Europe also participate in LIFE under
Association Agreements.

15

 
4. 

OVERVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION IN THE MEMBER STATES

4.1. 

Establishing the Natura 2000 network

During  the  first  ten  years  following  adoption  of  the  Directive,  the  emphasis  of
Member States’ work has been on the transposition of the Directive into the national
legal systems and in setting up the Natura 2000 network. Important progress has been
made  in  selecting  proposed  sites  of  Community  importance  under  the  Directive,
particularly since 1999. Nevertheless, the process is several years behind schedule and
significant  attention  is  still  needed  to  complete  the  process  of  site  selection  and
designation,  and  to  ensure  sites  are  appropriately  protected  and  managed  to  secure
favourable conservation status.

4.1.1.  Proposed sites of Community importance (pSCIs)

Under the Directive, Member States were to come forward with lists of proposed sites
of Community importance  by  June  1995. The lists  were to  be  accompanied  by  site-
specific information, including site maps, the name, location  and  extent of the sites,
and data resulting from application of the criteria in Annex III. The information is to
be  provided  in  a  format  established  by  the  Commission  (ie  using  the  Natura  2000
Standard Data Form) after approval by the Habitats Committee.

Up to the end of 2000, the period covered by the Article 17 reports, all Member States
had still only submitted partial lists of proposed SCIs to the Commission. Using the
first  lists,  the  Commission  initiated  a  process  of  ‘moderation’  in  1996,  based  on
discussions in a series of seminars covering the six biogeographical regions (Alpine,
Atlantic,  Boreal,  Macaronesian,  Mediterranean  and  Continental  regions).  These
seminars provided an opportunity to  examine the lists, in consultation  with Member
State  representatives  but  also  independent  scientists,  NGOs  and  since  2001
representatives of landowners.

Progress in relation to the Macaronesian region led to adoption, in December 2001, of
the list of SCIs for that region.17 The list contains a scientific reserve concerning the
distribution of ‘reefs’. The reservation means that the list is open to alteration in the
light of further developments in scientific knowledge. The process of agreeing lists of
SCIs for other regions is ongoing, and expected to be concluded in 2004.

Despite these serious delays, more than 14 per cent of the EU’s territory has now been
proposed for or included  in  Natura  2000.  The  following  table  (Table  4.1)  illustrates
the overall situation as regards site proposals under the Habitats Directive at the end
of 2000, as well as progress achieved by May 2002. According to this, the lists from
Belgium, France and Germany are still notably insufficient,  although  there  has  been
significant progress in these countries, Sweden and the UK in 2002.

17

Decision 2002/11/EC

16

 
                                                
Table 4.1

Overall Situation Regarding Site Proposals

Member
State

Number  of  proposed
sites  of  Community
importance

Coverage 
of
proposed sites (km2)

of 

% 
territory

national

Assessment 
national lists

of

Decembe
r 2000

March
2003

Decembe
r 2000

March
2003

Decembe
r 2000

March
2003

December
2000

March
2003

Austria

Belgium

127

209

Denmark

194

160

270

194

9,144

8,896

10.9

10.6

1,105

3,178

3.6

10.4

10,259

10,259

23.8

23.8

Finland

1,381

1,671

47,154

60,090

13.9

17.8

France

1,029

1,174

31,440

40,632

5.7

Germany

2,196

3,535

20,434

32,143

5.8

7.4

9.0

Greece

234

236

26,522

27,641

20.1

20.9

17

 
 
 
 
Ireland

317

364

6,140

9,953

8.7

14.2

Italy

2,507

2,369

49,364

41,266

16.4

13.7

Luxembourg

38

Netherlands

76

Portugal

94

38

76

94

352

352

13.6

13.6

7,078

7,330

17.0

17.7

16,502

16,500

17.9

17.9

Spain

937

1,276

90,129

118,496

17.9

23.5

Sweden

2,454

3,420

50,908

57,476

12.4

12.8

UK

386

576

17,941

24,064

7.4

9.9

EUR15

10,250

15,453

360,681

458,276

--

14.4

   notably insufficient 

 substantial list but still incomplete 

 complete

Information 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/barometer/barometer.htm

Barometer; 

Natura 

based 

the 

on 

DG 

Environment;

18

 
 
 
Scientific references or inventories – experiences and difficulties

Member States were to base their proposed lists of SCIs on ‘relevant scientific information’.
Several  Member  States  (e.g.  Belgium,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Sweden,
and the UK) based their inventories and subsequent site selection on information contained in
existing databases, such as red data lists and existing national protection programmes. In other
cases (Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal) Community-funded inventories, evaluations
and mapping projects were undertaken specifically to assist the identification and proposal of
sites.

In most, if not all Member States, insufficient habitat and species data represented a hurdle in
the site selection process, particularly with respect to sites not already designated under other
schemes. Many  national lists  predominantly  reflected  the  distribution  of  existing  designated
areas  (e.g.  Austria,  Finland,  the  Netherlands  and  UK).  Nevertheless,  in  several  cases  a
considerable  number  of  new  sites  have  subsequently  been  proposed,  as  well  as  buffer  and
transition zones to increase coherence and connectivity between sites.

The  information  contained  in  inventories  or  other  scientific  references  was  commonly
elaborated using expertise from relevant authorities (nature conservation, agriculture, forestry
and fisheries), scientific and research institutions, and conservation organisations. In Finland,
for example, a working group was appointed by the Ministry of the Environment to prepare
the  national  list.  The  group  consisted  of  representatives  from  different  administrative  units,
research institutions and organisations.

Public consultation and reactions

In  a number  of Member States,  the preparation  of  draft national  lists  of  proposed  SCIs  was
followed by public consultation (e.g. Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Portugal, the UK
and certain regions of Spain). Where there was no full-scale public consultation process, more
targeted stakeholder events were in some case organised to facilitate local debate (e.g. in the
Walloon region of Belgium, Greece and Sweden).

Proposed lists of sites frequently met with public and administrative opposition, as reported in
Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain. The Netherlands and several
regions of Spain cited the lack of clarity on the legal implications and/or future financing of
Natura  2000  sites  as  an  impediment.  Member  States  responded  to  these  difficulties  in
different ways, for example, through awareness-raising actions.

The extent to which local concerns were reflected within the eventual lists of pSCIs has been
somewhat controversial, particularly in light of successive rulings by the European Court of
Justice,  namely  in  the  aforementioned  case  C-371/98,  First  Corporate  Shipping  Ltd.  In
Sweden,  local  authorities  had  been  required  to  receive  approval  from  landowners  before
submitting site proposals. This requirement was later (1999) changed so that authorities must
now simply gather the opinion of landowners.

19

 
4.1.2.  Conservation measures

Management measures (objectives, management plans, etc)

Under  Article  6  (1)  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  are  to  ‘establish  the  necessary
conservation measures’ which correspond to the ecological requirements of the site or species
for  which  the  site  has  been  designated.  This  may  involve  the  establishment  of  appropriate
management plans.

Article  6  (1)  applies  only  to  Special  Areas  of  Conservation  and  therefore  only  after  the
process  of  designation  is  completed.  However,  all  Member  States  have,  in  one  way  or
another, started applying management measures to some of the pSCIs.

Generally  speaking,  the  development  of  management  plans  for  pSCIs  was  still  at  an  early
stage  in  all  Member States at the  end of  the reporting period  (December  2000).  While  sites
which were already protected under other protection schemes (e.g. National Parks) frequently
benefited from formal management plans and/or measures, these were in place for relatively
few  of  the  pSCI  outside  existing  protected  areas.  In  some  Member  States  and  regions  (e.g.
Spain), pSCIs in this latter category cover large areas of territory.

Significant  progress  in  developing  management  plans  is  noted  in  two  areas.  In  the  UK,  a
series  of  management  plans  have  been  developed  for  marine  areas,  based  on  a  major  LIFE
project.  Indeed,  UK  work  on  management  plans  in  general,  is  at  an  advanced  stage,  with
many sites in the process of completing management plans. Progress is also noted in France
where ‘documents of objectives’ (documents d’objectifs or DOCOB) are being developed for
300  sites.  DOCOBs  are  not  scientific  documents,  but  provide  general  guidance  to  those
involved in the site.

Progress  in  developing  national  frameworks  and  guidelines  for  more  systematic  site
management  of  pSCIs  also  varies  considerably  between  Member  States.  For  example,  very
little  progress  is  reported  from  Spain  (where  the  task  of  site  selection  has  been  far  more
challenging  than  expected),  whereas  France  and  the  UK  are  well  advanced.  In  France,  a
Circular has been issued by the Ministry of Environment requesting département Prefects to
begin  work  on  preparing  the  DOCOBs,  with  the  legal  framework  provided  by  the
Environment Code.

In  the  absence  of  national  management  frameworks  and  site  based  management  plans,
existing  conservation  measures  frequently  consist  of  a  combination  of  restoration  projects,
land-use  agreements,  agri-environment  measures,  sustainable  forest  management,  water
management schemes and management of visitor pressure, to name but a few.

Protecting sites from deterioration

Member  States  are  to  avoid  cases  of  deterioration  of  sites  and  significant  disturbance  of
species.  Despite  the  delay  in  agreeing  lists  of  SCIs,  many  of  the  sites  proposed  for  Natura
2000 designation in the Member States are already under some form of national or regional
protection. In Sweden and the UK, for instance, approximately 70 per cent of proposed SCIs
partially  or  totally  coincide  with  existing  designations.  In  the  Netherlands,  95  per  cent  of

20

 
Natura  2000  sites  are  included  in  the  Main  Ecological  Structure  (EHS).  In  France,
preventative  measures  are  to  be  taken  in  Natura  2000  sites  covered  by  other  categories  of
protected areas or by management plans (DOCOBs).

Although  such  protection  can  be  less  stringent  than  that  set  out  in  Article  6(2)  of  the
Directive,  it  nevertheless  provides  a  degree  of  protection  against  deterioration  in  the  short
term. Some Member States and regions have also taken steps to protect proposed sites that are
not  within  existing  protected  areas.  On  the  other  hand,  certain  regions  have  taken  the  view
that  this  is  only  required  once  an  agreed  list  of  SCIs  is  formally  published  in  the  Official
Journal of the European Communities.

Evaluation and authorisation of new activities

Most if not all Member States are reported as having in place provisions that required some
form  of  environmental  assessment  and/or  authorisation  of  development  projects  in  or  near
Natura  2000  sites  which  include  an  assessment  of  the  effects  of  the  projects  on  the  sites.
France, Germany, Greece, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, for instance, report
that environmental assessments are  applied  wherever justified  by the  nature of development
projects.  However,  it  is  not  possible  to  ascertain  from  the  reports  to  what  extent  these
provisions are being applied in practice.

Impact of measures on the conservation status of habitats and habitats of species

The information provided in the national reports does not allow  an evaluation of the impact
that measures have had on the conservation status of habitats and habitats of species.

4.1.3.  Co-financing under the Directive

Estimating the costs of Natura 2000

Within  the  reporting  period  (1994  to  2000),  there  were  few  national  initiatives  aimed  at
estimating  the  costs  of  Natura  2000.  Some  Member  States  noted  the  inappropriateness  of
undertaking  such  work  before  the  extent  of  Natura  2000  is  known,  and  in  the  absence  of
management  plans  and/or  clear  management  objectives  (ie  a  definition  of  favourable
conservation  status).  Nevertheless,  some  ad  hoc  or  preliminary  studies  or  estimates  were
undertaken  in  Belgium,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Portugal,  the  Netherlands  and
the UK.

National/EU sources of funding

National funding sources have tended to derive from state or federal budgets, with estimates
of  national  funding  varying  significantly.  For  example,  the  Walloon  region  allocated  nearly
€10  million  to  Natura  2000  in  2001.  By  contrast,  the  considerably  larger  and  more  diverse
Spanish  regions  of  Aragon  and  Extremadura  have  nature  conservation  budgets  of  less  than
€600,000 per  year. Greece distributed approximately €17.4 million to projects and activities
associated with the habitats Directive over the period 1994 to 2000.

21

 
A  number  of  different  sources  of  EU  funding  have  been  drawn  upon  in  support  of  Natura
2000, with Member State reports commonly referring to LIFE-Nature, the Structural Funds -
European  Agricultural  Guidance  and  Guarantee  Fund  (Guidance  Section)  and  European
Regional  Development  Fund,  including  funds  distributed  through  Community  Initiatives
(Interreg  and  Leader)..  The  Guarantee  Section  of  the  European  Agricultural  Guidance  and
Guarantee Fund is also used as a funding source.

It is important to note that  the recent reform of  the Common  Agricultural  Policy  reinforced
considerably  the  role  of  the  EAGGF  in  financing  Natura  2000,  by  specifically  targeting
Article  16  to  support  the  implementation  of  Natura  2000,  by  increasing  the  ceiling  for  co-
financing  and  the  maximum  co-financing  rate  for  agro-environmental  measures  and  by
explicitly mentioning cross-compliance with the Habitats and Birds Directives

4.1.4. 

Surveillance

Article 11 of the Habitats Directive requires that Member States undertake surveillance of the
conservation  status  of  the  natural  habitats  and  species,  with  particular  regard  to  priority
natural habitat types and priority species. Additional monitoring is required by Article 12 in
relation to the incidental capture and killing of Annex IV(a) species. The Member States and
the Commission are to encourage the necessary research and scientific work needed  for this
purpose. The Habitats Directive specifically requires that the results of surveillance work are
to be included in the national reports prepared under Article 17.

Most Member States highlight surveillance systems and sometimes results of surveillance, but
only for a number of individual species rather than for the full range of habitats and species
covered  by  the  Directive.  Only  Denmark  provided  general  surveillance  results,  based  on
historical and recent data gathered from a number of different sources. Information is collated
from known locations where species and habitats of Community interest occur to give a site
‘conservation status’ category, and aggregated to provide an overall national categorisation. In
relation  to  the  13  priority  habitat  types  which  occur  in  Denmark,  results  show  that  2  are
favourable, 3 unfavourable, 6 uncertain and 2 unknown.

In other countries or regions, for example, in Austria and Portugal, surveillance is interpreted
as a  site-specific activity,  rather  than  monitoring  conservation  status  of  habitats  and  species
throughout  their  range  and  against  established  targets.  Surveillance  is  in  some  cases  also
focused  on  pre-existing  protected  areas,  rather  than  focusing  on  or  being  tailored  to  Natura
2000. Some Member States do report that more comprehensive surveillance systems are being
elaborated  (e.g.  Finland,  Ireland,  Sweden),  following  initial  pilot  or  scoping  work  (e.g.
Germany,  the  Netherlands).  In  many  cases  it  is  not  evident  that  these  surveillance  systems
to  favourable
will  evaluate  progress  against  pre-determined 
conservation status.

targets  corresponding 

There  is  consequently  very  little  information  provided  by  the  Member  States  which  would
allow an assessment of progress towards the overall objectives of the Directive.

22

 
According to  the European Environment  Agency,18 important eco-systems continue to  be at
risk, including forests, wetlands, species-rich agricultural habitats, several dry and arid areas,
and some marine areas. Wetlands have been generally declining for decades, both in area and
quality, but this is still difficult to quantify. Establishing trends for semi-natural grasslands is
even harder than for wetlands, although trends in farm structure, farm management and farm
species  leave  little  doubt  that  species-rich  agricultural  habitats  in  Europe  have  declined
considerably  during  recent  decades.  With  regard  to  species,  the  EEA  reports  that  surveys
show  the  serious  decline  in  some  previously  widespread  species  towards  very  unstable
populations and reduced distribution ranges.

4.2. 

Protection of species

4.2.1.  Establishing strict systems of protection

The  Member  State  reports  typically  refer  to  national  and  regional  legislation  for  the  strict
protection of  animal  and  plant  species.  The  legislative  system in most countries builds on a
mixture of nature conservation laws and national/regional hunting and fishing regulations.

Austria, Germany, Finland and Sweden have introduced separate regulations for game and/or
fish  species.  In  some  instances,  the  protection  of  large  mammals  or  specified  groups  of
species  is  also  dealt  with  as  part  of  separate  regulatory  systems.  Finland,  for  instance,  has
passed legislation that protects all whales within Finnish territory.

All national reports make  reference to the  use  of  Biodiversity  Action  Plans,  Species  Action
Plans  or  other  targeted  species  conservation  measures.  Most  Member  States  (ie  Austria,
Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK) report on the
use of species action plans or special management plans to ensure strict systems of protection,
which  sometimes  go  beyond  the  requirements  of  the  Directive.  In  Greece,  the  Netherlands,
Sweden and the UK, initiatives are developed at the national level, while in Austria, Belgium,
and Germany plans are instead developed from a regional perspective, reflecting the fact that
responsibility  for  nature  conservation  is  devolved  to  the  regions.  Spain  has  regional  action
plans under the umbrella of national strategies for certain key species.

Few of the national reports specify the type of measures taken to establish a comprehensive
system of strict protection (other than the legislative), or to the prohibition of deterioration of
reproduction sites.

Monitoring incidental capture and killing

Article 12 (4) of the Directive requires Member States to ‘establish a system to monitor the
incidental capture and killing of the animal species listed in Annex  IV (a)’ of the Directive.
Member States are further obliged to respond to the results of such monitoring by preventing
‘negative impact’ of incidental capture and killing.

18

Chapter on Biological diversity, “Europe’s environment: the third assessment”, EEA, Copenhagen.

23

 
                                                
In general, national reports contain little information on relevant monitoring systems. Austria,
Belgium,  Luxembourg,  Germany,  Sweden,  and  the  UK  cite  relevant  provisions  under  their
respective legal systems, but do not elaborate on the type of monitoring systems in place, or
the results that have been obtained. In those Member States where monitoring systems are in
place, these are frequently limited to particular regions (e.g. Austria, Portugal and Greece) or
occasional  surveys  of  the  impact  of,  for  example,  fishing,  power  lines  and  traffic  on  wild
fauna  (e.g.  Netherlands,  Germany).  In  Greece,  only  certain  marine  species  are  subject  to
monitoring.

Existing monitoring systems tend not to cover the entire range of the species for which they
are designed. The accent is generally put  on monitoring of  incidental captures or killings to
species  where  monitoring  is  considered  feasible  or  relevant.  For  certain  species  listed  in
Annex IV (a) of the Directive, the risk of incidental capture or killing is considered negligible
(e.g.  Anaecypris  hispanica  in  Portugal),  or  implementation  of  systematic  monitoring  of
incidences  of  killing  or  capture  is  considered  too  difficult.  Italy  reports  that  there  is  no
national system capable of monitoring all species throughout the territory.

Reports  do  not  commonly  specify  management  measures  taken  in  cases  where  monitoring
demonstrates  this  to  be  necessary.  One  case  of  measures  being  introduced  concerns  the
incidental  capture  and  killing  of  harbour  porpoises  (Phocoena  phocoena  ).  In  light  of
scientific  research,  Danish  authorities  have  drawn  up  an  action  plan  to  reduce  such  killing,
notably  requiring  that  problematical  fishing  nets  are  fitted  with  ‘pingers’  to  deter  porpoises
from  fishing  nets.  The  Dutch  report  also  states  that  research  is  being  undertaken  to  address
bycatch resulting from fishing activities and muskrat control measures.

4.2.2.  Taking in the wild and derogations

If surveillance under Article 11 suggests it to be necessary, Member States are to ensure that
any  takings  of  wild  specimens  of  flora  and  fauna  listed  in  Annex  V,  as  well  as  their
exploitation,  is  compatible  with  their  favourable  conservation  status.  Apart  from  continuing
surveillance  under  Article  11,  takings  can  be  regulated  by  restricting  access  to  property,
applying hunting or fishing rules, etc.

Several Member States restrict all hunting or other forms of taking of specimens through the
issuing of licences (e.g. Austria and Germany). The reports do not provide information on the
surveillance results associated with the relevant Annex V species, or the impact that permitted
takings  have  had  on  favourable  conservation  status.  An  exception  is  provided  by  Portugal
which  reports  widespread  regression  of  populations  of  fish  species,  resulting  from
inappropriate conservation measures, lack of supervision and habitat degradation.

Under Article 15 Member States are to prohibit the use of all indiscriminate means of capture
and killing of the Annex IV (a) and V (a) species. While most if not  all Member States are
reported  as  having  relevant  legislation  in  place,  overall  enforcement  of  Article  15  could
arguably  be  improved.  Greece  allows  exceptions  to  the  restrictions  on  prohibited  means  of
capture (as listed in Annex VI of the Directive) by allowing the use of Aldrich traps for the
fixing of emitters on bears  and of bat nets  for research  purposes. Similarly,  Portugal allows
the use of box traps to reduce the predator density in certain game areas, and the Portuguese
report  states  that,  despite  existing  regulation,  indiscriminate  means  of  capturing  fish  are

24

 
reported  from  several  proposed  SCIs.  The  prosecution  of  those  using  prohibited  traps  and
methods of killing and capture is reported as being lax.

Under Article 16, Member States ‘may derogate from the provisions of Article 12, 13, 14 and
15 (a) and (b)’,

(cid:1)  if no satisfactory alternative exists and

(cid:1)  if the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species at a

favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Most  reported  derogations  were  made  for  scientific  and  educational  purposes,  although
derogations have been made for a number of other reasons, including property development
(Germany,  Netherlands),  to  reduce  predator  density  in  game  areas  (Portugal),  to  prevent
damage  to  livestock  and/or  crops  (Finland,  France,  Portugal,  Netherlands,  Sweden)  and  for
health  and  safety  reasons  (Finland).  However,  little  information  concerning  the  type  of
measures taken to ensure compatibility is provided by the national reports. As with takings, it
is  not  generally  possible  to  establish,  on  the  basis  of  the  reports  submitted,  whether  these
derogations are compatible with favourable conservation status.

4.3. 

Other general issues

4.3.1.  Research efforts

Research projects in the Member States tend to focus on individual species and habitat types,
with  projects  co-ordinated  and  executed  at  the  regional  and  local  level.  All  Member  States
have engaged in research activity at such level.

There  are  examples  of  national  research  initiatives  with  a  more  generic  approach  to  habitat
and  species  conservation.  The  Finnish  Environment  Institute,  for  instance,  ran  a  national
project (SAVA, 1997-2002) on biodiversity and the protection of species in a changing forest
environment. In the UK, the Scottish Natural Heritage Species Action Programme engages a
co-ordinated approach to species conservation by taking a comprehensive look at how to best
maintain  and  restore  viable  populations  of  Scotland’s  most  threatened  wildlife.  Similarly,
Sweden is in the process of setting up a new research programme (to start in 2001) combining
three main areas of study: (i) The Marine biodiversity, patterns and processes, (ii) Research to
Forge the Conservation Chain, and (iii) Alien Species in Aquatic Environments.

4.3.2.  Re-introductions and introductions

A  majority  of  Member  States  (the  exceptions  being  Belgium,  Luxembourg,  Austria,  and
Greece),  have  had  national  projects  involving  the  re-introduction  of  Annex  IV  species.  The
species concerned were mostly mammalian  (Castor fiber (DK, DE,  F, NL), Cervus elaphus
corsicanus  (F),  Cricetus  cricetus  (F,  NL),  Lutra  lutra  (F,  SE),  Lynx  lynx  (DE),  Mustela
lutreola (DE), Ursus arctos (F)), butterflies (Maculinea arion (UK), Parnassius mnemosyne
(FI)) or plants (Cypripedium calceolus (UK), Agrimonia pilosa, Puccinellia phryganodes (G)
and Arctophila fulva (SF)). There are further attempts to reintroduce Podarcis muralis (NL),
Bombina bombina (S), Bombina variegata (NL), Emys orbicularis (D,  F)  and Hyla arborea
(D)  into  the  wild.  Ireland  has  reintroduced  Bufo  calamita.  France  has  also  reintroduced

25

 
Acipenser  sturio.  Both  Finland  and  the  UK  remark  on  the  difficulty  and  resources  intensity
that is associated with reintroduction programmes.

Portugal and Belgium report on the deliberate introduction of non-native species into the wild.
The  Belgian  report  highlights  a  number  of  introduced  species  (e.g.  Rana  ridibunda,  Rana
perezi,  Rana  catesbeiana,  and  Alopochen  aegyptiacus)  which  have  increased  pressure  on
populations of indigenous species. Moreover, the illegal re-introduction of the beaver (Castor
fiber)  in  the  Walloon  Region  is  also  noted.  The  Flemish  Region  produced  a  special  action
plan on exotic species to address the issue. In Greece the introduction of Rana catesbiana in
Chania, Crete, is expected to have a negative impact on the ecological equilibrium of the area.
Helix  aspersa  has  also  been  introduced  for  commercial  purposes,  which  possibly  holds
different  genetic  information  than  the  local  population.  There  have  also  been  significant
introductions  of  fish  species.  France  is  in  the  process  of  developing  its  policy  in  this  area,
including a €2.3 million research programme.

Italy also highlights the problem of non-native freshwater fish species, many  of which have
been  introduced  in  the  past.  As  effective  preventive  or  recovery  measures  are  extremely
difficult, a study is under way to help develop monitoring and management guidelines.

4.3.3.  Education and information

Awareness raising and publicity relating to the Habitats Directive and Natura 2000 has often
focused on Natura 2000 as a whole, as well as being species or site specific. Different media
have been used, including the printed media, TV and radio features, educational facilities such
as  museums,  field  centres  and  botanical/zoological  gardens,  as  well  as  formal  training
workshops  and  stakeholder  events  to  publicise  Natura  2000.  Denmark  incorporated
information on the importance  of  Natura 2000  and  its  implementation  within  some  national
higher education curricula. Many Member States have increasingly also used  the  Internet to
provide information on the Natura 2000 process.

Many initiatives have been targeted at the general public, although the importance of NGOs
as ‘conductors’ is often also stressed. Training and awareness-raising has also been targeted at
staff of relevant national and regional authorities.

4.3.4.  Planning to encourage the management of landscape features

Under  Article  10  Member  States  shall  ‘endeavour  …in  their  land-use  planning  and
development policies and, in particular, with a view  to  improve the ecological coherence of
the Natura 2000 network’ to encourage the management of landscape features, most notably
those that serve as stepping stones or linear features that may act as wildlife corridors.

A number of Member States report on national progress  with respect to  the development of
ecological corridors between protected areas. One initiative encouraging greater coherence of
ecological  networks  has  been  taken  forward  by  the  Brussels  Region  of  Belgium,  which
organised a programme aimed at bringing the ‘green and blue’ networks of the city together.
The project highlighted the importance of creating connectivity between urban green spaces,
as  well  as  developing  a  link  between  the  city’s  waterways,  lakes  and  green  corridors.  In
Spain,  several  regional  governments  have  programmes  for  the  development  of  ecological
corridors between protected areas, including proposed SCIs. In some cases, these programmes

26

 
focus  on  particular  elements,  such  as  drovers’  roads  or  riverine  woodlands,  as  connections
between  Natura  2000  sites.  Greater  cohesion  between  spatially  dispersed  sites  is  also  to  be
secured  by  the  Dutch  ‘Main  Ecological  Structure  (EHS)  under  which  Natura  2000  is  being
established, although it is noted that greater coherence is needed with the Habitats Directive’s
objectives.  Greece  is  about  to  complete  a  national  programme  under  which  an  inventory  of
landscapes  bearing  a  potential  for  protection  and  conservation  of  their  features  has  been
carried out. This list of landscape sites will promote the creation of a network of landscapes
that will be characterised as ‘protected landscapes’ and will be protected accordingly.

4.3.5.  Human resources

Member States have adopted varied approaches to assessing human resources available within
the administrations for the implementation of the Directive. In the  UK, some 12,900 people
were  employed  by  those  organisations  contributing  to  the  UK’s  national  implementation
report.  This  includes  staff  employed  in  a  wide  range  of  competent  authorities.  The  Finnish
report,  on  the  other  hand,  focuses  on  personnel  dealing  more  specifically  with  the
implementation  of  Natura  2000,  of  which  there  are  ten,  plus  30  nature  protection  experts
working in regional environment centres. This is complemented by 60 people at the Finnish
Forest Research Institute and 300 people engaged in site management in the Forest and Park
Services.

The existence of dedicated or specialist agencies to support implementation of the Directive is
very  variable,  between  Member  States.  The  UK  and  its  four  government  agencies  contrasts
with France which has no such agencies. On the whole, Natura 2000 and the implementation
of  the  Habitats  Directive  is  administered  by  existing  members  of  staff,  ie  using  existing
resources for nature conservation at all levels of governance. Staff time in Spain (only a small
handful of people in central and regional governments) has been devoted very largely to the
process  of  site  proposals  over  the  past  years,  by  necessity.  This  has  left  very  little  time  for
developing other aspects of Natura 2000 implementation. The situation in Spain is common to
most other Member States.

27

 
5. 

CONCLUSIONS

The  Habitats  Directive,  alongside  the  Birds  Directive  (79/409/EEC),  is  a  key  instrument  to
support EU policy on the conservation of biodiversity, and a vital tool to assist the EU to meet
wider biodiversity conservation objectives, including the target to halt biodiversity decline by
2010.

This  report  is  based  on  Member  States’  reports  together  with  information  on  Commission
initiatives, covering the first reporting period for the Habitats Directive, from 1994 to 2000. It
provides  an  overview  of  progress  in  implementing  the  objectives  of  the  Habitats  Directive,
and particularly the establishment of the Natura 2000 network. In view of the delay between
the end of the reporting period and receipt of all the national reports from the Member States,
this  report  also  includes  information  on  progress  since  2000,  to  reflect  the  substantial
additional efforts by some Member States, particularly with respect to the process of selection
of Natura 2000 sites.

It is evident that Member States have, since 1994, made significant progress in implementing
the  Directive’s  obligations,  particularly  at  the  policy  level  and  in  site  selection  -  although
progress on this aspect has failed to meet the timescale as set out under the Directive. Progress
in other areas, notably the establishment of surveillance and monitoring to assess conservation
status of habitats and species of Community interest, the adoption of management objectives
and plans, and the application of species conservation measures has been extremely poor.

5.1. 

Conservation of habitats and species

5.1.1. 

Site selection

In relation to the selection of proposed sites, progress across the board has been at a similar
(slow)  rate  for  most  Member  States,  with  one  or  two  exceptions.  In  the  case  of  one
biogeographical  region,  for  example,  three  years  passed  between  the  first  and  second
seminars.  Some  Member  States  and  regions  did  not  submit  additional  site  proposals  during
that period, despite having numerous insufficiencies identified.

Since  the  end  of  this  first  reporting  period  (December  2000)  there  has  been  significant
progress from those Member States that were most delayed. This has allowed the Commission
to hold the final biogeographical seminars, which should allow for adoption of the remaining
lists in 2003 and 2004. However, this is clearly behind schedule and insufficiencies remain in
relation to all national lists of proposed sites.

The national reports identify a number of specific problems have hindered the site selection
process.

(cid:1)  Delays  in  certain  regions  and  Member  States  have  held  up  the  overall  process.  This  has
often been due to national debate as to the extent of designations required and challenges
during  the  process  of  consultation  on  individual  sites.  It  is  not  always  clear  that  the
processes  at  national  level  have  followed  the  scientific  criteria  of  the  Directive,  since
inventories of eligible sites have not been published in all countries.

28

 
(cid:1)  There  is  a  general  lack  of  suitable  scientific  data  and  resources  to  support  the  requisite
scientific  work,  as  well  as  problems  with  the  Annexes  to  the  Directive,  for  example,  the
way in which some  habitats  are  defined,  or the  exclusion of certain  endemic  species and
habitat types, especially for the Mediterranean region.

(cid:1)  Lack  of  a  clear  process  for  site  selection.  Although  the  criteria  in  Annex  III  seem  clear,
their  practical  implementation  was  developed  at  the  same  time  as  the  sites  were  being
selected.

(cid:1)  Particular  problems  relate  to  marine  sites,  resulting  from  a  lack  of  data,  but  also
complicated  jurisdictional  issues  and  overlapping  administrative  responsibility.  This
difficulty is presently being addressed by a working group created by the Commission with
the participation of several Member States.

5.1.2. 

Site protection

In terms of protecting proposed sites from deterioration or damaging impacts, three groups of
Member States and regions have emerged:

(cid:1)  Member States and regions that have introduced full legal protection for all sites (including

the UK, Ireland and Galicia) as soon as these are notified to the Commission;

(cid:1)  those  that  have  taken  some  administrative  steps  to  protect  all  proposed  sites  (e.g.  most

Spanish regions); and

(cid:1)  those  only  protecting  proposed  sites  through  existing  protected  areas,  postponing  the
designation  of  other  new  sites  until  after  the  Community  lists  are  formally  adopted  (e.g.
Abruzzo).

The  need  to  protect  sites  that  were  proposed  by  the  Member  States  to  integrate  the  Natura
2000 network has, in some cases, led to delays in infrastructure projects. This report has not
been able to evaluate the implications and justification for such delays, and attention is drawn
to  the  need  to  review  this  matter  in  future  reporting.  Experience  has  however  shown  that
where  project  promoters  instigate  effective  assessments  and  dialogue  in  the  early  phases  of
project planning these delays can be reduced significantly.

5.1.3. 

Site management

Again,  different  groups  of  Member  States  are  emerging  in  relation  to  site  management,
distinguished in the following ways:

(cid:1)  those Member States incorporating proposed sites into their system of nationally protected
areas  as  part  of  the  selection  process  (e.g.  UK),  or  where  a  system  for  establishing
management plans has been set up and is underway (e.g. France); and

(cid:1)  Member States waiting for proposed sites to become definitive SCIs before taking this step
(e.g.  Portugal,  Greece,  some  regions  in  Spain).  In  this  case,  sites  already  covered  by
national  designations  will  be  underpinned  by  existing  management  planning.  For  other
sites, outside existing protected areas, progress on management has generally been limited,
although certain site exceptions are noted, e.g. in Spain and Portugal.

29

 
5.1.4. 

Site conservation measures

In  the  case  of  all  Member  States,  much  activity  is  reported  in  relation  to  site  conservation
measures, although this is often not driven by Natura 2000, but relates to nature conservation
activity  in  existing  protected  areas  and/or  for  endangered  species.  Again,  there  are  certain
exceptions,  but  generally  it  seems  the  Habitats  Directive  has  not  led  directly  to  new
conservation measures at site level.

5.2. 

Species protection

Species protection under Article 12, which includes strict protection of all breeding sites and
resting  places  for  Annex  IV  animal  species,  has  been  a  requirement  of  the  Directive  since
1994.

However,  several  of  the  Member  State  reports  are  quite  vague  about  the  practical
implementation of this requirement. Legal frameworks are often cited, but in general it is not
clear if these constitute a ‘strict system of protection’ or if all Annex IV species benefit from
the protection regime. It is also not possible to establish, due to the way in which information
is supplied and the availability of that information, the ultimate effectiveness of the regime. In
particular,  there  is  no  information  from  any  Member  States  to  demonstrate  whether
derogations from the strict protection system  are having a detrimental  effect on  maintaining
the  species  concerned  at  a  favourable  conservation  status.  This  is  of  particular  concern  in
relation  to  the  derogations  for  Europe’s  large  carnivores,  which  are  among  the  most
threatened and vulnerable species in the EU.

A  Commission  Working  Group  on  Article  12  of  the  Directive,  established  in  2002,  is
expected to  improve understanding of  Member  States’ policy  and practice  in  relation  to  the
protection of animal  species. This should support improved implementation and,  ultimately,
effectiveness of the species protection provisions.

5.3. 

Resources (human and financial)

Due  to  the  lack  of  data  and,  where  data  are  provided,  to  the  lack  of  standards  in  the
approaches to reporting, the resources devoted to implementing the Habitats Directive are not
entirely  clear.  However,  there  appear  to  be  major  differences  between  Member  States  and
regions in resources committed to implementing the Directive. Some of the regions with the
greatest  biodiversity  are  trying  to  implement  the  Directive  with  very  limited  resources,  as
illustrated by expenditure in Aragon/Extremadura in Section 4.

Future  reporting  under  the  Habitats  Directive  could  usefully  place  greater  emphasis  on
assessing  human  and  technical  resources  and  capacity  in  relation  to  implementing  the
Directive.

5.4. 

Reporting under the Directive

The purpose of this report is to assess progress in implementing the Habitats Directive, and in
particular the contribution of Natura 2000 to achieving favourable conservation status of the
habitats  and  species  listed  in  Annexes  I  and  II  of  the  Directive.  To  this  end,  according  to
Article  17,  Member  State  reports  are  to  include  ‘information  concerning  the  conservation

30

 
measures referred to in Article 6(1) as well as evaluation of the impact of those measures on
the conservation status’ of these habitats and species. As noted in section 4.1.2, Article 6(1)
will apply only  after the process  of  designation of SACs  is  completed.  The  national  reports
should also include the main results of surveillance activities required under Article 11 of the
Directive, and the information should be  assembled (or be able  to  be  assembled)  to provide
assessments of the conservation status of all the habitats and species of Community interest.

In practice, it is difficult to develop a picture of general progress achieved in implementation
of  the  Habitats  Directive,  or  to  identify  areas  or  issues  in  need  of  greater  attention,  for  the
following main reasons.

(cid:1)  Despite the reporting guidelines agreed by the Habitats Committee, information in several
reports has been provided at the site level, rather than giving a general but comprehensive
overview of progress throughout the Member State concerned. The coverage of the reports
is also quite variable, with some far more complete than others.

(cid:1)  Information on surveillance activities under  Article 11  is particularly limited, in terms of
the  comprehensiveness  of  information  provided  in  individual  reports,  and  the  extent  to
which  information  can  be  compared  between  reports.  This  is  a  major  weakness  and
effectively  prevents  an  overall  evaluation  of  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  of  the
Directive  are  being  achieved.  This  major  weakness  reflects  the  accent  that  was  put  until
now by all Member States on the process of site selection, and will remain until Member
States put in place appropriate monitoring and surveillance schemes.

(cid:1)  In general, national reports have contained little critical analysis of experiences, in relation
to  successes  or  difficulties.  For  example,  there  is  a  tendency  to  describe  legal  and
administrative developments, rather than actual experiences, positive and negative, relating
to implementation of the Directive’s measures on the ground.

(cid:1)  The requirement for 15 separate national reports to be drafted, independent of each other,
makes  it  difficult  to  report  on  progress  towards  creating  a  coherent  European  ecological
network  of  sites.  This  is  compounded  by  the  fact  that  reports  only  cover  some  of  the
activities  relating  to  Natura  2000,  ie  excluding  those  measures  aimed  at  protecting  and
conserving  bird  habitats.  There  may  be  an  argument,  for  the  sake  of  streamlining  and
improving  reporting  requirements,  for  merging  the  two  reporting  requirements  in  the
future, whilst seeking information required to undertake a more substantive evaluation of
progress.

In  conclusion,  it  will  be  difficult  to  evaluate  progress  under  the  Habitats  Directive  and
towards the broader objective of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 without a reporting
procedure that goes beyond that presently available. The first round of Article 17 reports has
failed  to  capture  the  full  dynamics  of  implementation.  Consideration  should  therefore  be
given  to  ways  of  deepening  future  evaluation,  for  example,  developing  more  specific
guidance,  strengthening  input  from  the  European  Environment  Agency,  and  introducing
external  or  peer  review.  The  development  of  a  more  sophisticated  approach  to  reporting
relevant information will be all the more critical in an expanded EU of 25 Member States.

31

 
The  Commission  will  be  launching  very  soon  a  discussion  with  the  present  and  future
Member  States,  in  the  light  of  the  new  Reporting  Directive,  on  how  to  maximise  the
usefulness  of  the  national  reports  submitted  under  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives.
Following the  approval of the lists of sites of  Community  importance, the Commission  will
also review with the Member States ways to improve the effectiveness of the implementation
of the Directive, reserving always the possibility of taking legal action when necessary.

32