Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Financing Natura 2000 {SEC(2004)770} {SEC(2004)771}
Date: 2004-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, biodiversity, co-financing, environmental policy, protected area

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.07.2004 
COM(2004)431 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Financing Natura 2000 

{SEC(2004)770} 
{SEC(2004)771} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Natura 2000.................................................................................................................. 4 

The Natura 2000 network - Current State and the Way Forward ................................ 4 

Managing Natura 2000 - the Costs and the Benefits.................................................... 5 

Towards a Framework for Community Co-financing.................................................. 6 

Community Co-financing for the Natura 2000 network – The Legal Base................. 7 

EU Financing Instruments - Current Co-financing...................................................... 7 

Conclusions and Next Steps......................................................................................... 8 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

At the European Council meeting in Gothenburg in June 20011, European Heads of State and 
Government  made  a  commitment  to  reverse  the  decline  of  biodiversity  in  the  European 
Union  by  the  year  2010.  The  Natura  2000  network  of  protected  areas  made  up  of  sites 
designated under the Community Birds and Habitats directives is a key pillar of Community 
action for the conservation of biodiversity. It is central to achieving the commitment made in 
Gothenburg. 

Despite  the  importance  of  biodiversity  for  society  and  the  strength  of  the  economic 
arguments  for  conservation,  the  measures  taken  at  EU  and  Member  State  level,  have  been 
insufficient. The overall state of European biodiversity is poor and the general trend2 is one of 
continuing  decline.  The  European  Environment  Agency’s  Third  Environmental 
Assessment3(2003) stated that “important ecosystems continue to be at risk” while “species 
population  trends  are  mixed  -  some  previously  highly  threatened  species  are  starting  to 
recover, others continue to decline at alarming rates [and] decline is now also perceptible in 
previously common species.” The Community has recognised that biodiversity protection is 
not  simply  an  option;  rather  it  is  a  critical  component  of  sustainable  development.  The 
commitment made by Heads of State and Government at Gothenburg to reverse the decline of 
the EU’s biodiversity by the year 2010 is recognised as a key element of the EU Sustainable 
Development Strategy4 and is developed in more detail in the Sixth Community Environment 
Action Programme (2002-2012)5, which identifies nature and biodiversity as one of the four 
main priorities for action. Key actions identified in the Sixth EAP include implementation of 
the  Community  Biodiversity  Strategy6  and  Action  Plans7,  including  full  implementation  of 
the nature directives8 and, in particular the establishment of a network of protected sites, the 
Natura  2000  network9.  This  asks  further  for  Community  assistance  in  terms  of  financial 
support for promoting the sustainable use of the sites and their management.  

1 
2 
3 

4 

5 

6 
7 
8 

9 

Presidency Conclusions of the Gothenburg European Council, 15 and 16 June 2001. 
Europe’s Environment, The Dobris Assessment. 1999. European Environment Agency. Chapter 29. 
Europe’s  Third  Environmental  Assessment.  Environmental  Assessment  Report  no.10.  European 
Environment Agency. 2003. Chapter 11. 
Communication from the Commission. A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union 
Strategy for Sustainable Development. COM(2001)264 final. 
Decision  No  1600/2002/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying  down  the  Sixth 
Community Environment Action Programme (OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p.1). 
COM(1998) 42 final. 
COM(2001)162 final Volumes I-V. 
Council  directive  79/409/EEC  on  the  conservation  of  wild  birds  (OJ  No  L  103,  25.4.1979,  p.1)  and 
Council directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna 
and flora (OJ No L 206, 22.07.1992, p. 7), as amended by Council directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 
1997  adapting  to  scientific  and  technical  progress  directive  92/43/EEC  (OJ  No  L  305,  08/11/1997, 
p.42). 
“…establishing  the  Natura  2000  network  and  implementing  the  necessary  technical  and  financial 
instruments and measures required for its full implementation and for the protection, outside the Natura 
2000 areas, of species protected under the Habitats and Birds Directives [and] promoting the extension 
of the Natura 2000 network to the Candidate Countries”. Article 6 §2(a) of Decision No 1600/2002/EC 
laying down the 6th Environmental Action Program. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) addresses also the question of Community co-financing 
for  Natura  2000.  One  of  the  recitals  recognises  that  “the  adoption  of  measures  intended  to 
promote  the  conservation  of  priority  natural  habitats  and  priority  species  of  Community 
interest is a common responsibility of all Member States may, impose an excessive financial 
burden  on  certain  Member  States  given,  on  the  one  hand,  the  uneven  distribution  of  such 
habitats  and  species  throughout  the  Community  and  also  “the  fact  that  the  "polluter  pays" 
principle can have only limited application in the special case of nature conservation”. “It is 
therefore  agreed  that,  in  this  exceptional  case,  a  contribution  by  means  of  Community  co-
financing should be provided for within the limits of the resources made available under the 
Community's decisions;…”. Article 8 of the Directive provides for Community co-financing 
of the network (Annex 2). 

The issue of appropriate Community financial support for the implementation of the Natura 
2000 network has been the subject of resolutions by both the Council and the Parliament. In 
preparing  its  response  to  these  requests,  the  Commission  has  been  assisted  by  an  Expert 
Group  made  up  of  representatives  of  Member  States  and  a  variety  of  stakeholders  groups. 
The  report  of  the  Group,  delivered  to  the  Commission  in  December  200210  quantified  the 
financial  needs  of  the  Natura  2000  network  and  reviewed  experience  of  Community 
financing  to  date,  as  well  as  identified  and  discussed  options  for  future  Community  co-
financing  of  the  network.  The  Commission  followed  up  on  the  report  with  a  questionnaire 
sent to EU-15 and the new Member States, aimed at getting greater detail on likely costs.  

2. 

NATURA 2000 

2.1. 

The Natura 2000 network - Current State and the Way Forward 

Natura  2000  is  the  European  ecological  network  of  sites  established  under  the  Habitats 
Directive.  Significant  progress  has  been  made  in  the  establishment  of  the  Natura  2000 
network  through  designation  by  Member  States  of  more  than  18,000  sites.  Today,  the 
network  covers  an  area  of  63.7  million  hectares,  including  a  significant  marine  area  of  7.7 
million  hectares,  while  the  terrestrial  area  of  the  network  (around  56  million  hectares) 
accounts  for  approximately  17.5%  of  the  EU-15  terrestrial  area.  Now  that  the  network  is 
nearing  completion,  there  is  a  need  to  increase  the  focus  on  the  active  management  of  the 
sites so as to ensure long-term conservation and the achievement of the economic and social 
objectives of the network. This in turn raises the question of finding sufficient financing at all 
levels  to  ensure  that  Natura  2000  becomes  a  dynamic  part  of  the  EU  biodiversity  strategy. 
Investments,  which  promote  the  sustainable  use  of  the  sites  and  access  for  visitors,  are 
particularly important in realising the potential of the network to contribute to local economic 
development.  

The establishment of the Natura 2000 network is a major achievement. It is crucial that, as 
the designation process set out in the Habitats Directive nears its conclusion, attention now 
turns  more  towards  management  of  the  sites.  The  formulation  of  management  plans  has 
already started in most Member States and should be completed in the coming 2 to 3 years. 
The implementation of these plans clearly raises the issue of the availability of the financial 
and other resources required. 

10 

Available on line at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/natura_articles.htm 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2.  Managing Natura 2000 - the Costs and the Benefits 

2.2.1.  Financial Needs 

The provisions of the Habitats Directive clearly establish that the responsibility for ensuring 
the  management  of  Natura  2000  sites  lies  with  the  Member  States.  In  practice,  for  many 
Member States this responsibility is delegated to national or regional conservation agencies 
or in the case of federal states it may be defined as the responsibility of regional authorities. 

The financial needs of the Natura 2000 network relate to a broad range of measures required 
to  ensure  the  efficient  conservation  management  of  the  designated  sites.  It  also  includes 
actions  that  promote  the  public  use  and  access  to  the  sites  in  ways  compatible  with  their 
conservation  objectives.  These  actions  can  relate  to  one-off  ‘investments’,  such  as  land 
acquisition  or  the  restoration  of  damaged  habitats  or  features,  or  they  may  involve  actions 
over  extended  periods,  such  as the  regular  active  management  of  vegetation  and  other  land 
features, and site or species monitoring. They can be directly related to on-the-ground action, 
or they may involve broader site management, educational and awareness-raising activities, 
which  ensure  that  sites  and  their  special  qualities  are  protected  from  a  variety  of  local  and 
more  strategic  impacts.  A  detailed  list  of  measures  and  activities  necessary  for  the 
establishment and management of the Natura 2000 network is presented in Annex 3. The type 
of  activities  required  can  be  seen  to  fall  into  four  broad  categories.  This  categorisation  is 
useful in subsequent discussion of both costing and eligibility of funding. 

2.2.2.  Estimation of Costs of the Natura 2000 Network  

Establishing  the  Natura  2000  network  has  given  rise  to  costs  for  various  groups.  If 
development  rights  are  restricted,  land  prices  may  fall  (though  neighbouring  areas  may  see 
higher  land  prices).  Natura  2000  may  impose  restrictions  on  farming  practices  and  fishing 
efforts, and has been identified as posing problems for the transport and construction sectors. 
Mining and forestry activities on Natura 2000 sites are also affected, either by restrictions on 
their activity or by the need to incur additional costs related to changes in the way the activity 
is carried out. Mining and/or extraction rights may need to be bought out by the State, while 
compensation  for  foregone  income  may  need  to  be  provided  to  forest  owners.  Given  the 
extensive  nature  of  the  network,  occupying  approximately  60  million  hectares  and  around 
17.5% of the territory of EU-15, it is not surprising that the anticipated costs are substantial. 
The analysis presented in Annex 8 does not take account of these costs, except where they are 
regarded as part of the costs of managing the Natura 2000 network. 

In preparing the cost estimates below, the Commission has drawn on the Report of the Expert 
Working Group and a questionnaire completed by the Member States. The responses to this 
questionnaire  led  to  a  cost  estimate  of  €3.4  billion  per  year  for  EU-15.  This  figure  was 
extrapolated to calculate costs for the 10 Acceding Countries and resulted in total costs for 
EU-10 between € 0.63 billion and €1.06 billion per year, bringing the total cost estimate to 
€4.0-€4.4 billion per year for the enlarged EU. However, the estimate for the new Member 
States is open to criticism, because of the assumptions used.  

Given  the  questions  about  the  reliability  and  comparability  of  the  first  estimates,  a  new 
questionnaire  was  sent  to  both  Member  States  and  Accession  Countries  in  June  2003, 
requesting  more  detail  and  justification  of  the  projected  figures.  Analysis  of  these 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
information, led to a revised estimate of €6.1 billion per year for EU-25 (Table 3 in Annex 8). 
The  €6.1  billion  cost  estimate  is  the  most  reliable  estimation  at  the  time  for  this 
Communication. It can and should be further refined. Member States will be asked to review 
their submissions on the basis of commonly agreed cost estimation methods. The anticipated 
progress  in  preparation  of  management  plans  in  the  coming  years  should  provide  a  sound 
basis for improving these cost estimates. 

2.2.3.  Benefits 

Protection  of  biodiversity  through  the  Natura  2000  network  can  offer  significant  economic 
and social benefits. Economic benefits can stem from ecosystem services (for example water 
purification  and  supply,  protection  against  soil  erosion),  provision  of  food  and  wood 
products,  and  activities  on  the  site  or/and  related  to  the  site  such  as  tourism11,  training  and 
education,  as  well  as  the  direct  sale  of  products  from  Natura  2000  sites.  This  can  lead  to 
significant  local  income  and  employment  gains  as  well  as  wider  regional  development 
benefits  (Annex  4).  Social  benefits  can  include  broader  employment  and  diversification 
opportunities  for  local  people  leading  to  greater  economic  stability  and  improved  living 
conditions;  safeguarding  cultural  (as  well  as  natural)  heritage;  and  opportunities  for 
environmental education and leisure, health and amenity. 

While  there  have  been  no  comprehensive  assessments  of  such  benefits  at  EU  level,  some 
broader work on the benefits of safeguarding our natural heritage has provided indications of 
their potential significance. A broad appreciation of the full range of benefits, concerns and 
trade-offs can show how a Natura 2000 site can become a driver for sustainable development 
in  the  local  economy  and  can  contribute  to  sustaining  the  local  rural  communities.  Active 
consideration  of  these  issues  in  dialogue  with  all  relevant  stakeholders  is  the  key  to  the 
successful establishment of the Natura 2000 network and its integration into the wider socio-
economic sphere of an enlarging European Union. 

3. 

TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY CO-FINANCING 

The  co-financing  for  NATURA  2000  at  EU  level  is  justifiable  in  a  number  of  cases  for 
several  reasons.  On  one  hand,  the  benefits  of  enriched  biodiversity  are  shared  widely 
throughout the Union, whereas the costs are borne by those Member States having the most 
diverse  and  rich  biodiversity  and  hence  the  most  protected  sites  as  it  is  recognized  in  the 
“whereas”  clauses  of  the  Habitat  Directive.  On  the  other  hand,  the  integration  of 
environmental  considerations  into  regional,  agricultural  and  rural  development  policies, 
should also justify the contribution of these policies to the financing of Natura 2000, in the 
form  of  a  combined  use  of  the  corresponding  available  EU  financial  instruments.  It  should 
not  be  forgotten  that  Natura  2000  makes  a  substantial  contribution  not  only  to  EU 
environmental  policy,  but  can  also  contribute  towards  regional  and  agricultural/rural 
development policies. 

The Expert Group Report looked at 3 possible options for co-financing:  

11 

European  Commission  (2003)  “Using  natural  and  cultural  heritage  to  develop  sustainable  tourism  in 
non-traditional tourism destinations.”  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  the use of existing EU funds, (notably Rural Development, Structural and Cohesion Funds 

and LIFE-Nature) 

•  increasing  and  upgrading  the  LIFE-Nature  instrument  to  serve  as  the  primary  delivery 

mechanism  

•  the creation of a new funding instrument dedicated to Natura 2000. 

Many  interest  groups  have  expressed  concern  that  the  currently  available  financial 
instruments are not broad enough in scope and coverage to adequately provide for sufficient 
co-financing  of  the  Natura  2000  network.  Experience  to  date  demonstrates  that  there  are 
limitations  in  using  existing  instruments.  The  following  section  looks  briefly  at  current 
experience with existing co-financing mechanisms, before going on to assess the options for 
the future. 

3.1. 

Community Co-financing for the Natura 2000 network – The Legal Base  

The Habitats Directive (Annex 2) explicitly recognises the need for Community support for 
the  management  of  Natura  2000  in  exceptional  cases,  through  co-financing  by  Community 
financial instruments, in case of the excessive financial burden that Natura 2000 might place 
on Member States, particularly those Member States with a higher concentration of species 
and  habitats  of  Community  interest.  As  Table  1  in  Annex  1  shows  there  are  marked 
differences  in  the  extent  of  designation  in  different  Member  States.  Article  8  therefore 
provides for Community co-financing, following a request by a Member State, of measures 
needed to ensure the favourable conservation status of habitats and species in the designated 
SACs. However, article 8  does  not  directly specify the  types of  Community  funding which 
could be used for co-financing. 

A variety of existing EU funding sources have been used by Member States to provide co-
financing for certain costs associated with the management of sites proposed or designated as 
Natura  2000  sites  (Annex  5).  The  funds,  which  have  been  used  for  this  purpose  to  date, 
include  the  Structural  Funds  (in  particular  the  ERDF,  the  EAGGF-Guidance  in  certain 
regions  and  the  INTERREG  and  LEADER  Initiatives),  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the  EAGGF-
Guarantee  Section  (for  the  financing  of  Rural  Development  measures  including  the 
accompanying measures), and LIFE (in particular LIFE-Nature). 

3.2. 

EU Financing Instruments - Current Co-financing 

These  funds  have  provided  opportunities  for  supporting  management  and  investment  needs 
for  the  Natura  2000  network  (Annex  6  presents  opportunities  for  Natura  2000  under  Rural 
Development  provisions).  While  the  EU  has  made  funding  available  the  responsibility  for 
implementing  Natura  lies  with  the  Member  States.  Hence,  in  the  context  of  the  funding 
programmes Member  States  have decided how to better accommodate Natura 2000 in their 
national  strategic  planning,  structural  or  rural  development  programmes  and  other 
development initiatives like LEADER and INTERREG, or the Cohesion Fund.  

The Member States have used these opportunities in different ways for two reasons. Firstly, 
not all the financial instruments (like the Cohesion Fund) and resources (Objective 1 regions) 
are  available  to  all  Member  States.  Secondly,  Member  States  have  flexibility  to  propose 
programmes that reflect their specific strategic approaches and development priorities to all 
the instruments. Financing Natura 2000 has therefore been an option, but not an obligation. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Until  now,  mainly  the  Member  States  having  regions  benefiting  from  Objective  1  support 
have included actions for the management of the Natura 2000 network in their programmes. 
The  funding  in  these  regions  has  been  justified  by  the  relatively  high  coverage  of  Natura 
2000, the economic situation of the region and the projected contribution of this expenditure 
to  regional  development.  Some  countries  (e.g.  Greece  and  Portugal)  have  followed  a 
programme  approach,  which  has  allowed  them  to  provide  for  the  network,  supporting 
projects that aim both at supporting administration, management and infrastructure, as well as 
providing  information.  Others  have  faced  problems  in  designing  and  choosing  appropriate 
measures  in  their  regional  operational  programmes  (e.g.  Italy).  This  demonstrates  that 
carefully designed strategic planning including a programme approach is needed. Similarly, 
the  rural  development  resources  have  been  used  by  a  limited  number  of  Member  States  to 
date. Some German Länders and Italian and Spanish regions have made use of the provisions 
of  Article  16  of  Regulation  1257/99  in  their  rural  development  plans.  Other  countries  (e.g. 
Spain,  UK,  Germany,  Greece  and  Austria)  have  chosen  to  develop  agri-environmental 
measures targeting specifically the needs of their Natura 2000 sites. There are also other agri-
environmental measures that support environmentally friendly practices in Natura 2000 sites 
(like  organic  farming,  farming  promoting  integrated  pest  management  techniques,  etc), 
however there is little information available from Member States on how much agricultural 
area under agri-environmental schemes not targeting specifically Natura 2000 sites has been 
designated as Natura 2000.  

What is feasible in some Member States due to the allocation of sufficient financial resources 
may  be  less  feasible  in  other  Member  States.  Furthermore,  each  of  the  main  funds  and 
initiatives includes constraints, such as eligibility constraints for certain regions or countries 
in the case of Cohesion Fund, and for certain management actions, schemes and recipients in 
the  case  of  ERDF  and  EAGGF.  However,  the  recent  changes  in  the  CAP  agreed  with  the 
2003 Reform and recent Commission’s proposals for the new EU cohesion policy (Annex 7) 
have resulted in increasing the co-financing opportunities for the network overall. It remains 
to  be  seen  how  the  Member  States  will  integrate  the  available  opportunities  in  their 
programmes and plans for the next financial period. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 

The  protection  of  Europe’s  biodiversity  has  reached  a  crucial  stage.  The  Gothenburg 
European Council agreed a target to halt the decline of Europe’s biodiversity by 2010. The 
legal and policy framework is in place and protected sites have been designated to form the 
Natura 2000 network. Effective management of the sites is crucial to achieve the Gothenburg 
objective. 

A  clear  choice  now  has  to  be  made  between  the  integration  of  Natura  financing  into  other 
relevant Community policies and a stand-alone fund. The results of the Member States’ and 
stakeholder consultation12 have shown a clear division in opinions on this issue. The majority 
of  Member  States  favoured  the  integration  option,  while  stakeholders  showed  a  preference 

12 

A  report  of  the  consultation  on  the  Financing  of  Natura  2000  is  available  on  the  link: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/natura_2000_network/financing_na
tura_2000/index_en.htm 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for  a  dedicated  Natura  2000  fund.  Despite  the  limitations  outlined  above,  the  Commission 
considers that the integration option is the better approach for the following reasons: 

–  it  will  ensure  that  the  management  of  Natura  2000  sites  is  part  of  the  wider  land 
management policies of the EU. Thus, farming inside Natura 2000 sites will be part of the 
CAP  financial  support  and,  structural  interventions,  being  part  of  rural  and  regional 
development  policies.  This  complementary  approach  will  enable  the  network  of  Natura 
2000 sites to play its role in protecting Europe’s biodiversity better than if Natura sites are 
seen to be isolated or different from the wider policy context. 

–  it will allow Member States to set priorities and to develop policies and measures which 

reflect their national and regional specificities. 

–  it will avoid duplication and overlap of different Community funding instruments and the 
administrative  complication  and  transaction  costs  which  would  be  associated  with  such 
duplication. 

Therefore,  the  Commission  will  propose,  as  part  of  its  forthcoming  package  of  legislative 
proposals on the future financial perspectives, to enable Member States to draw co-financing 
for certain activities in Natura 2000 sites from a range of existing instruments. 

its  recent 
The  Commission  has 
its  commitment 
Communication  “Building  our  Common  Future”13  setting  out  its  approach  to  the  next 
financial period. It indicated its view that, future rural development policy after 2006 should 
be structured inter alia around:  

to  NATURA  2000 

indicated 

in 

•  enhancing  the  environment  and  countryside  through  support  for  land  management, 
including the co-financing of rural development actions related to NATURA 2000 nature 
protection sites. 

Furthermore  one  of  the  important  activities  included  in  the  environmental  priorities  for  the 
period 2007-2012 is the: 

•  development and implementation of the Natura 2000 network of sites to protect European 

bio-diversity as well as implementation of the biodiversity action plans. 

This will require appropriate proposals in the forthcoming revision of the rural development 
regulation  building  on  existing  opportunities  to  facilitate  and  co-finance  rural  development 
actions related to the implementation of Natura 2000 including for the management of sites 
on agricultural and forest land and promoting the uptake of these opportunities by Member 
States.  European  Cohesion  Policy,  implemented  through  the  cohesion  and  structural  funds, 
already permits support for investment in infrastructure in Natura 2000 sites under national, 
regional  and  cross  border  programmes  in  the  framework  of  environmental  projects  and 
programmes, where they contribute to the overall economic development of the region. In its 
proposal  for  the  revision  of  the  Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds,  the  Commission  will 

13 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  Building  our 
common  Future  Policy  Challenges  and  budgetary  means  of  the  Enlarged  Union  2007-2013 
COM(2004)101 final. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
safeguard  this  possibility14  and  subsequently  provide  appropriate  guidance  on  how  to 
operationalise the Gothenburg commitment. In addition to the funding to be provided within 
the rural development and structural funds some support for the Natura 2000 network will be 
included  in  the  proposed  Financial  Instrument  for  the  Environment.  Funding  here  will  be 
primarily  for  supporting  actions  such  as  networking  of  best  practices,  communication  and 
public awareness raising activity. 

It  is  therefore  foreseen  that  Community  Funds  and  primarily  the  Structural  and  Rural 
Development  Funds  will  make  substantial  co-financing  available  for  the  implementation  of 
the  Natura  2000  network.  It  is  however,  not  possible  to  fix  a  target  for  the  level  of  this 
funding since the final expenditure will depend on the priority given to Natura 2000 within 
individual  member  states  programmes.  The  criteria  for  eligibility  will  be  set  out  in  each  of 
these Regulations and the general rules of each fund will apply. 

Further  work  needs  to  be  done  on  refining  cost  estimates  and  developing  programmes  of 
implementation  at  the  national  level,  which  will  be  necessary  to  make  effective  use  of  the 
Community funds. Member State’s current work on management plans for the Natura 2000 
sites should contribute to improved cost estimates. 

It is important to ensure that the choice of integrating the funding needs of the Natura 2000 
network  into  other  policy  areas,  as  outlined  in  this  Communication,  results  in  sufficient 
overall  funding  to  secure  the  objectives  of  the  network.  The  Commission  will  therefore 
encourage  Member  States  to  give  due  consideration  to  the  needs  of  Natura  2000  when 
establishing their programmes for these funds. The Commission will also consider publishing 
more detailed guidance on how these funds can be used to support the Natura 2000 network. 

14 

A new opportunity for the co-financing may be created by way of the  proposal  of the Commission for 
a New Financial Instrument for transfrontier co-operation in the Community external frontiers.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
What kind of co-financing will the Community provide for Natura 2000 in future? 

It  is  not  possible  to  give  a  precise  indication  in  advance  of  the  amounts  likely  to  be  spent 
annually  on  co-financing  Natura  2000  sites  from  2007  onwards  since  it  will  be  up  to  each 
Member State and region to decide how to take account of the needs of its sites in drawing up 
national and regional programmes under the various funds. It is not proposed to ring fence set 
amounts inside each Fund since the situation inside each Member State will be different. 

For this reason, it  is  not possible  to  indicate in advance how much of  the cost estimated in 
this  Communication  for  Natura  might  be  co-financed  by  the  Community  budget.  However, 
the following illustration, based on experience in the 2000-2006 period, is given to show how 
the proposed system could work. 

The rate of co-financing for investments/activities in the specific cases to be covered by EU 
funding will be fixed in each regulation and will vary (e.g. currently up to a maximum of 50 
to 85%). However, to simplify, if co-funding was shared 50/50 between the Community and 
Member States this would imply that up to half of the estimated cost might come from the 
Community. While exact current expenditure is uncertain, it can be estimated that in the order 
of  €500  million  are  spent  annually  through  Rural  Development  measures  supporting  the 
management of Natura 2000. Allowing for enlargement and the finalisation of designation it 
is anticipated that, subject to the choices made by Member States in their rural development 
plans, this figure will significantly increase in the next years. Similar figures are not available 
for the Structural Funds so it is not possible to make similar or illustrative projections at this 
stage.  However,  the  overall  share  of  environment  projects  in  the  Structural  Funds  is  quite 
significant and important sums are already spent on nature protection in some Member States.  

EN 

11 

   EN