Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Financing Natura 2000 (COM(2004) 431 final)
Date: 2005-02-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, biodiversity, environmental policy, protected area, regional policy, rural development, sustainable development

C 221/108

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2005

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Financing Natura 2000

(COM(2004) 431 final)

(2005/C 221/19)

On 15 July 2004, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned communi-
cation.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for the
Committee's work on this subject, adopted its opinion on 13 January 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Ribbe.

At its 414th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 February 2005 (meeting of 10 February 2005), the Euro-
pean Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by a unanimous vote:

1. Preliminary observations

1.1

In this opinion the EESC:

— describes the situation as regards nature conservation in

Europe, which continues to be unsatisfactory;

— draws attention to the large number of political decisions,
taken by EU Heads of State and Government and other
bodies, on maintaining biodiversity in Europe;

— sets out the relevant European nature conservation legisla-
tion and the attendant commitments to be met not just by
the EU, but also by the Member States, particularly with
regard to the establishment of the Natura 2000 network of
nature conservation sites;

— reiterates the reasons why there has to be a commitment to
nature conservation; these reasons are not confined solely
to the nature-conservation and cultural spheres but clearly
also embrace the economic and social sectors; and

— puts forward proposals with regard to the possible co-finan-
cing by the EU of measures to be taken in connection with
the Natura 2000 network.

In its Communication,

1.2
the Commission describes
current practice as regards Community co-financing, which
derives primarily from Article 8 of the Council Directive on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
(the Habitats Directive) (1);
this practice has up to now not
offered a satisfactory solution to the problems encountered.

1.3
An estimate of the financial cost arising from the estab-
lishment, implementation and maintenance of the Natura 2000
network is set out in the Commission's Communication. The
Commission does, however, underline the fact that a definitive,
precise figure is not yet available. The estimate of the annual
cost which is currently regarded by the Commission as being
the most reliable points to a figure of EUR 6.1 billion (for EU-
25) (2). The Commission stresses that this estimate ‘can and
should be further refined’. This is a task, in particular, for the

(1) Directive 92/43/EEC (OJ No. L 206 of 22.7.1992, page 7).
(2) Overall costs, to be financed by the Member States and the EU.

Member States,
since they are ultimately responsible for
submitting applications for funding under the co-financing
arrangements.

1.4
It is clear from the Commission's document that the
debate in the EU is no longer about whether Community
funding will be made available for establishing and maintaining
the Natura 2000 network but solely about how this can best be
achieved.

1.5

Three possible options are discussed:

— the use of existing EU funds, (notably rural development
funds made available under the Guarantee Section of the
EAGGF, Structural Funds (such as the ERDF, ESF, the Finan-
cial Instrument for Fisheries' Guidance (FIFG), the EAGGF
Guidance Section, the Cohesion Fund 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.

1.6
After carrying out its assessment, involving, inter alia,
the Commission
consulting the Member States concerned,
concludes that the first option should be adopted, i.e. making
use of existing EU funds.

1.7
the
The Commission does, however, also highlight
limitations which will have to be overcome in respect of this
option. Attention is drawn, inter alia, to the fact that some of
the currently existing Funds are not used on an across-the-
board basis, with the result that the particular regions which
may include the Natura 2000 sites have been virtually excluded
from such aid. As is generally known, the ERDF, for example,
does not provide blanket coverage and in the case of the Cohe-
sion Fund, too, only particular Member States are eligible to
benefit
to
remedy this matter as part of the re-organisation of the Struc-
tural Funds.

resources. The Commission promises

from its

8.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/109

2. General comments

The EESC welcomes the Commission's Communication,
2.1
which, on the whole, provides an excellent basis for discussion.
Consideration of these issues is overdue, since, despite the
various political expressions of intent, no decisive changes have
occurred over the last few years in the field of nature conserva-
tion which, in some cases, is having to contend with a critical
situation. The Commission and the Member States are repeat-
edly highlighting the ongoing deterioration in the situation
with regard to nature conservation. Judging by the yardstick of
GDP, people in the EU have never before been so prosperous
whilst nature conservation has never before been in such a
poor situation as is the case at present.

The EESC wishes to draw attention, in this context, to
2.2
its own-initiative opinion from 2001 entitled ‘The situation of
nature and nature conservation in Europe’ (1) and the Commis-
sion's 2003 Environment Policy Review (2). The EESC welcomes
the fact that there is a large measure of agreement between the
Commission and itself over the appraisal of the situation.

The establishment of the Natura 2000 network is based
In
the EU Member States and the EC

2.3
primarily on the Habitats Directive adopted in 1992.
adopting this Directive,
Commission made two promises:

— to conclude the establishment of a European nature conser-
vation network, to be known as the Natura 2000 network,
within three years (3);

— to make the requisite funding available in order to ensure
that landowners or land-users do not have to bear the
financial burden.

2.4
Neither of these promises has yet been kept. Both the
Commission and the Member States are thus urged not just to
take fine-sounding decisions but also to be fully consistent in
implementing such decisions.

The Natura 2000 network is an element of decisive
2.5
importance in the campaign to safeguard biodiversity. Heads of
state and government have repeatedly committed themselves
publicly to halting the dramatic decline in biodiversity. The
EESC also draws attention to the commitments entered into by
the EU and the Member States under the Biodiversity Conven-
tion. Nature conservation and the protection of species are also
necessary in order to safeguard genetic and biotic resources.

2.6
It is clear that the issue of the funding of Natura 2000
will be of decisive importance not just for nature conservation,
as such, but also for the social acceptance of nature conserva-
tion and the credibility, in the environmental field, of both the
Commission and the Member States.

(1) See OJ C 221 of 7.8.2001, pages 96-102.
(2) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-
entitled ‘2003 Environment Policy Review’,

pean Parliament
COM(2003) 745 final of 3.12.2003.

(3) The three-year deadline (i.e. by 1995) referred to the notification of
the sites concerned by the Member States. In some cases this notifi-
cation has still not been finally concluded.

2.7
The EESC notes the extremely long delays in designating
Natura 2000 sites; the network has not yet been established
even 12 years after the adoption of the Habitats Directive. Up
to now landowners and land-users have frequently regarded it
as a disadvantage to be located in Natura 2000 sites or to
manage such sites. One of the reasons for taking this attitude is
that the question of the financial implications of these sites has
not been finally resolved.

The EESC has repeatedly stressed that, if Europe's unique
2.8
natural heritage is to be conserved, a real partnership will have
to be established between nature conservation, on the one
hand, and the agricultural sector, on the other hand. With this
aim in view, farmers who take account of the corresponding
nature conservation provisions and implement them must, in
turn, also be treated as fully-fledged partners by the authorities
and nature conservation bodies operating at local level. In this
context, resolving financial questions is a matter of decisive
importance.

The presentation of the Commission's communication
2.9
was therefore overdue. It has not escaped the EESC's notice
that there were considerable difficulties in reaching agreement
within the Commission on the formulation of the communica-
tion; these difficulties led to repeated delays in the presentation
of the document.

2.10
to two key points, which the Commission,
regarding as especially important. These points are as follows:

In its own-initiative opinion, the EESC drew attention
is now

too,

— Europe does not have just an outstanding cultural heritage.
The various man-made and natural landscapes also repre-
sent a remarkable natural heritage which should be
preserved. The continent of Europe owes its appeal and
fascination to its great variety of different types of land-
scape and animal and plant species. The preservation of this
natural heritage, in order to ensure that future generations,
too, will be able to enjoy it, has become a key joint task for
politicians, administrations and the general public at all
levels of policy-making and administration.

— Nature conservation is, however, not just an end in
itself. Nature plays a vital role in our lives and in the
economy; it provides an important resource for economic
activities and is also a prerequisite for a variety of sporting,
leisure and recreational activities, health care and some
forms of medical treatment.

the Commission also highlights,

The EESC welcomes the fact that, in its Communica-
2.11
the
tion,
economic aspects. The EESC strongly supports the Commis-
sion's declaration that biodiversity protection is not simply an
option; rather it is a vital component of sustainable development.

in particular,

C 221/110

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2005

2.12
It must, however, be recognised that the importance to
regional economies, as described in point 2.2.3 of the Commu-
nication, and the attendant economic benefits, together with
the resulting social benefits, are all too rarely appreciated or
taken into account in the debate on nature conservation and
Natura 2000.

2.18
The EESC draws attention to the fact that Article III-
184 of the draft European Convention sets out the following
principle: ‘The Union shall encourage cooperation between Member
States in order to improve the effectiveness of systems for preventing
and protecting against natural or man-made disasters within the
Union’. Natura 2000 sites are, in many cases, in a position to
assume such a role.

2.13
Nature conservation (and therefore the designation of
Natura 2000 sites) is often rather regarded — wrongly — as a
cost factor, an imposition, a disadvantage or a threat; this is
one major reason why these projects frequently give rise to
opposition and why critical problems continue to arise with
regard to the implementation of what
is often exemplary
nature conservation legislation.

2.14
The EESC paid considerable attention to this important
fact in its abovementioned own-initiative opinion. It notes that
very little has changed in this context over the last few years.
The EESC calls upon the Commission, working together not
just with the other EU Institutions but also with all other stake-
holders at EU level and in the Member States, to launch a wide-
ranging campaign to stimulate awareness in this field.

It is essential that to instil a real awareness of the fact
2.15
‘a Natura 2000 site can
that, as the Commission points out,
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 enlar-
ging European Union’. In the EESC's view, the achievement of
such an awareness is equally as important to the success of
nature conservation in the EU as is the need to resolve the
financial arrangements.

2.16
It has so far only been possible in a small number of
isolated cases to bring about a general awareness not just of
the economic benefits for regional development (tourism, the
sale of regional products, etc.) of having a high level of biodi-
versity but of the general benefits of nature conservation areas
in respect of, for example, climate protection (1) and protection
against flooding. Studies, such as those mentioned in Annex I
to the Commission document, have so far done little to change
this situation, despite the fact that they clearly indicate that ‘the
purely monetary benefits of conserving biological diversity significantly
outweigh the costs’.

2.17
In this context, the EESC can only express its amaze-
ment at the fact that it appears to be easier to provide EU
funding for dealing with the effects of natural disasters, which
are partly due to over-exploitation of natural resources and
landscapes — i.e. to a failure to implement nature conservation
— than it is to secure funding for what is, in the final analysis,
the cheaper alternative of taking steps to prevent such disasters.

(1) Moors and marshlands, for example, act as valuable ‘carbon sinks’.

flood-protection measures

2.19
By way of example, whilst, following the devastating
flooding disasters on the River Elbe in 2002, an EU Disaster
Fund was soon established, it is, however, proving to be extre-
mely difficult to implement and secure funding for integrated,
ecological
and
meadows, which can demonstrably bring about a considerable
reduction in peak high water levels downstream (2), thereby
making it possible to avoid potential damage. A similar situa-
tion arises with regard to measures to prevent forest fires, parti-
cularly in the case of southern European states. Charges will
have to be introduced. EU policy should be guided by the
motto that ‘prevention is better than cure’. Nature conservation
can make decisive contributions towards the achievement of
this goal.

covering rivers

One of the reasons for this situation is undoubtedly
2.20
the fact that, in many cases, it is private landowners and land-
users who have to bear the brunt of the cost — both direct and
indirect — of nature conservation measures, whereas the social
benefits of such measures can virtually only be ‘entered into
the accounts’ as ‘positive externalities’ (in contrast to ‘external
costs’), which means that they do not figure in the calculation
of, for example, GNP. The new financing arrangements must
pay particular attention to this fact.

3. Specific comments

3.1
The EESC welcomes the fact that, at the Commission, it
is now no longer a question of whether it is to co-finance EU
measures in respect of Natura 2000 sites; the ‘only’ question
now being addressed is that of identifying the instruments to
be used to this end.

3.2
The EESC understands the reasons for choosing the
financing option in question, namely in order to develop and
make appropriate use of existing aid instruments. It is essential
for planning, administrative and financial arrangements in
respect of the implementation of Natura 2000 to be carried out
at the level where both the problems and the positive develop-
ment potential exist, namely at
in the Member
States. Organising and making use of the existing Funds, such
as the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, the EAGGF and the
new European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
(EAFRD), in a way which is more in tune with the needs of
nature conservation will provide the responsible bodies in the
Member States with scope for flexible action.

local

level

(2) These measures may also have a cross-border impact: the Nether-
lands is a clear beneficiary of such measures, which are often also of
a high value in terms of nature conservation.

8.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/111

3.3
The Commission also rightly points out that this may
well be the best way to ensure that ‘the management of Natura
2000 sites is part of the wider land-management policies of the EU’.

back on when we are of the opinion that no funding is avail-
able. As the heads of state have often stressed, nature conserva-
tion is a task for society as a whole and a vital political require-
ment for which financing had to be found.

3.4
The EESC does, however, believe that it is important to
underline the need for the Commission and the other respon-
sible bodies to redouble their efforts with a view to ensuring
that, in future, there are no more reoccurrences of the scenario
whereby projects which have a detrimental effect on nature
conservation benefit from co-financing by the EU, with the EU
stepping in again at a later stage to pick up the bill for the
resultant damage to nature and the environment.

The financial situation in the EU and the expected argument over
funding

3.5
The discussion on the financing of Natura 2000 sites
has to take place against the background of the expected wran-
gling over the size of the overall EU budget and the allocation
of resources (1). There is no doubt that there will be a lively
dispute over funding:

— the financial perspective for the EU, submitted by the
Commission, covering the period 2007 to 2013, foresees
expenditure amounting to, on average, 1.14 % of Gross
National Income, with the ceiling for ‘own resources’ being
set at 1.24 %. The Member States which are ‘net contribu-
tors’ are currently insisting on an upper limit of 1 % which,
were their demand to be accepted, would mean a cut in
expenditure of some EUR 30 billion in 2013;

— the enlargement of the EU is bound to lead to shifts in
funding between the Member States and the regions, parti-
cularly in the field of structural aid. (2) Regions which up to
now have received aid will, where appropriate after a transi-
tional period, no longer be eligible for aid.

3.6
The discussion on the upper limit should be seen in the
context of the fact that the amount to be set aside for nature
conservation, estimated by the Commission at at least EUR 6.1
billion per annum, is in addition to the tasks to be carried out
under the second pillar, even though, up to now, the requisite
funding has not been provided under the financial perspective.
There is likely to be a lively dispute over funding, both
between regions and between the various policy areas. Such
disputes are by no means new; in the past, however, nature
conservation all too often had to bow to the needs of other
policies.

3.7
Steps must therefore be taken to ensure that nature
conservation, which is rightly seen as forming part of overall
EU policy, is not subordinated to other tasks when funding is
being provided by Member States; this would effectively doom
nature conservation to failure. The EESC would once again
reiterate the fact that nature conservation in Europe is not to
be regarded as a luxury which we can ‘afford’ when the
economic situation is favourable and which we can turn our

(1) See the opinion of the EESC on the 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 – Opinion no.
CESE 1204/2004 – which has not yet been published in the Official
Journal.

(2) Large parts of the funding for Natura 2000 would have to come

from structural aid.

3.8
In order to adhere to the principle of making econom-
ical use of budgetary resources, there is a need to specify (a)
which of the areas of responsibility under Natura 2000 identi-
fied by the Commission are to be regarded as absolutely vital
and (b) which of these areas may be regarded virtually as
‘optional’. In respect of those responsibilities which are vitally
important (e.g. compensatory payments or the provision of
incentives to landowners or users of land), funding then clearly
has to be earmarked. Should this fail to be the case, the EESC
would be unable to support the principle of incorporating the
financing of Natura 2000 into the existing funds, and would
have to come out in favour of introducing separate financing
arrangements, echoing the views of many of the stakeholders
involved in the preliminary stages of
the Natura 2000
programme.

Particular requirements of nature conservation in the EU

for 26.3 % of

3.9
In Table 2 of the Annex to the Commission document
(SEC(2004) 771), Natura 2000 sites are broken down by type
of land-use, covering the following categories: pastures/heath-
scrubs-grasslands, which account
the area
covered by Natura 2000 sites; forests (principally non-exploited
forests or forests which are only exploited on an extensive
basis), which represent as much as 28.9 % of
the area
concerned; inland waters-marshes-bogs, which make up almost
13 % of
the area; and old orchards and the tremendously
species-rich Spanish and Portuguese ‘Dehesas’ (covering an area
of almost 800 000 ha), which account for approximately 2 %
of the overall area. Only 5.6 % of the overall area is listed as
‘agricultural land’ (3).

3.10
In Part 3 of the Annex (SEC(2004) 771) the Commis-
sion describes in detail the actions needed for the implementa-
tion of the Natura 2000 network and makes a calculation of
the costs involved (the current
figure is EUR 6.1 billion).
Broadly speaking, a distinction may be drawn in this context
investment costs
between administrative and planning costs,
(e.g. respect of the purchase of land and also other forms of
investment) and ongoing costs, including the cost of compensa-
tory payments to landowners and maintenance costs.

it

In the EESC's view,

is absolutely essential

3.10.1
to
present more precise cost calculations as quickly as possible. It
has doubts, for example, over whether the sums indicated in
respect of the new Member States (EUR 0.3 billion, as opposed
to EUR 5.8 billion for EU-15) will be sufficient. It is clear that
some states (such as Poland) will certainly have to subsequently
notify many more sites, thereby ultimately adding to the finan-
cial requirements.

(3) A further 13 % of the overall area is made up of marine areas and
4 % comprises coastal areas, in which the main costs involved are
monitoring costs.

C 221/112

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2005

3.11
In the EESC's view, the Commission rightly points out
that nature conservation is frequently a matter of, as a general
rule, ensuring the continuation of
traditional management
regimes, which are essential to the creation and maintenance of
habitats. In many cases although the management regimes in
question are now demonstrably no longer profitable for the
operators concerned,
it is, however, desirable on social and
nature conservation grounds, for them to continue to be used.
there is virtually no other pattern of
By way of example,
grazing which is more in line with the sustainability principle
than the extensive system of grazing formerly used in the
Spanish and Portugese ‘Dehesas’ which also involved driving
livestock in the spring to the summer grazing areas in the
mountains
the migration routes
(‘canadas’ meadows), which have developed over decades into
valuable areas for nature.

(‘transhumance’),

along

After reading the Commission document, however,
3.12
EESC members still find it unclear (a) whether co-financing by
the EU is actually being demanded, as a matter of urgency, or
planned in the case of all of the areas listed or (b) in which
fields financial contributions are expected to be made solely by
the Member States, in pursuance of the implementation of EU
law. This matter requires further clarification.

3.13
In many cases conflicts arise as a result of the fact that
previous users of the land in question have so far failed to
receive adequate compensation or incentives; this is thus an
area to which very special attention needs to be devoted. We
cannot, on the one hand, speak of the social or even the
overall economic value of nature conservation whilst, on the
other hand, expecting land-users or landowners to bear the
costs. Future financing arrangements must ensure that private
landowners or land-users, at least, will be assured of receiving
compensation or, better still an incentive,
for carrying out
measures which are in accordance with the goal of nature
conservation. Living in or managing a Natura 2000 site should,
in future, be regarded as a benefit, rather than as a drawback.

3.14 With a view to ensuring that this approach is adopted,
there is a need to ascertain, in each individual case, the exact
extent of the claim for compensation. Setting a blanket upper
limit and deadlines for the submission of claims for compensa-
tion, as is the case at present would be detrimental to the
whole approach.

If no separate budgetary heading is

3.14.1
introduced,
consideration should be given first and foremost, in the case of
compensation payments, to drawing on the second pillar of the
CAP, whereas, in the case of investments, use should rather be
made of the standard Structural Funds. The EESC draws atten-
tion, with considerable concern, to the fact that new tasks or
payments, under the second pillar (the future rural develop-
ment pillar) in addition to the current payments, cannot be
financed from this programme unless expenditure on other
tasks is reduced or additional funding is provided.

To put it in a nutshell: if we wish to maintain the
3.14.2
quality of rural development and also help to finance Natura

Brussels, 10 February 2005.

2000 via the second pillar of the CAP, additional funds clearly
have to be earmarked. The EESC does, however, note that such
an increase in funding is not provided for under the financial
perspective presented by the Commission and there is a very
grave danger that savings are to be made, particularly under
the second pillar;
the figure for EU revenue
proposed in the financial perspective is not accepted by the
Member States which are net contributors. In the EESC's view,
this set of circumstances not only constitutes a major weak
point and presents considerable potential for conflict; it also
jeopardises the full range of nature conservation efforts in the
EU.

furthermore,

3.14.3
The EESC is therefore able to endorse the proposed
arrangements only on condition that they are not implemented
at the expense of other rural development measures. Should
additional funding not be made available, neither the Commis-
sion nor the Member States will be able to fulfil their claim and
their political promise both to promote rural development and
implement Natura 2000. Politicians wishing to pursue this line
in the EU should at least have the courage to tell the public
openly that there is no longer a political will to assume certain
tasks (e.g. nature conservation).

3.15
In the EESC's view this does not mean that there is no
need to make economical use of resources also when addres-
sing the issue of nature conservation. The primary objective of
the EU's nature conservation provisions, and therefore of the
Natura 2000 network itself, is to maintain bio diversity. This
represents virtually a ‘mandatory programme’; in this context
there is a need for EU participation, at least in those areas
which are of European importance.

3.16
The natural corollary of this argument is, however,
that not every local nature conservation measure represents a
measure of European importance, which therefore deserves to
be co-financed by the EU. The Member States, regions and
local authorities must not be relieved of their clear political and
financial obligation by citing the motto that:
‘No EU funding
means no nature conservation’. The EU, for its part, must also
not
‘We make it possible to finance
measures using the existing Funds. If the Member States fail to
do this because they set themselves other priorities, then they
themselves are to blame’.

take the view that:

On the other hand, whilst

3.17
tapping the regional
economic development potential of Natura 2000 sites, as
referred to by the Commission, would be desirable (since it is
becoming clear that nature conservation may also actually
bring economic benefits), this aspect is, however, not necessa-
rily relevant to the issue of species conservation.

3.18
In the EESC's view, this therefore implies that particu-
lar measures to be funded as part of the establishment of the
Natura 2000 network are vitally important and that the requi-
site funding should therefore be clearly earmarked. The EESC
asks the Member States and the Commission to formulate ideas
with this aim in view.

The president

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND