The implementation of the Natura 2000, Habitats Directive 92/43/ECC and Birds Directive 79/409/ECC (preparation for an ex-post territorial impact assessment).
Date: 2015-04-22
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EC Directive, application of EU law, biotope, bird, environmental economics, environmental protection, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

The implementation of the Natura 2000, 
Habitats Directive 92/43/ECC and  
Birds Directive 79/409/ECC 
(Preparation for an ex-post 
territorial impact assessment) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report was prepared by the Ecologic Institute, UCL Centre for Law and 
the Environment. 

It does not represent the official views of the Committee of the Regions. 

More  information  on  the  European  Union  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  is 
http://www.cor.europa.eu 
available 
respectively. 

http://www.europa.eu 

online 

and 

at 

Catalogue number: QG-01-15-274-EN-N 
ISBN: 978-92-895-0812-4 
DOI: 10.2863/16342 

© European Union, April 2015 
Partial reproduction is permitted, provided that the source is explicitly mentioned.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1  Executive summary ............................................................................................. 1 

2 

Implementation and state of play of the Directives and of the Natura 2000 ...... 3 

2.1 

Flexibility of the Directives in selecting Natura 2000 sites ........................ 3 

2.1.1 

Flexibility within the relevant Articles ................................................. 3 

2.1.2  Variations in Practice ............................................................................ 4 

2.2 

Implementation and Infringement overview ............................................... 6 

2.2.1 

2.2.2 

2.2.3 

2.2.4 

Implementation Overview .................................................................... 6 

Infringement Actions Brought by the Commission ............................. 7 

Case Law and Biogeographical Regions .............................................. 9 

Legal Implementation and Enforcement Priorities ............................ 10 

2.2.5  Non-Legal Strategies to Aid Implementation..................................... 10 

2.3 

Specific Issues on Local and Regional Level ............................................ 12 

2.3.1 

2.3.2 

2.3.3 

Involvement in Site Designations ....................................................... 12 

Setting up Conservation Measures: Management Plans .................... 13 

Prioritised Action Frameworks ........................................................... 14 

2.4  Opinions about the Directives ................................................................... 14 

2.5 

Stakeholder positions towards the REFIT process .................................... 15 

3 

Implementation challenges for the local and regional governments ................ 19 

4  Economic, environmental and social benefits and disadvantages .................... 23 

4.1 

Environmental effects ................................................................................ 23 

4.1.1 

4.1.2 

4.1.3 

The state of the birds at the regional level .......................................... 23 

The state of the (non-bird) species at the regional level ..................... 24 

The state of Annex I habitats at the regional level ............................. 25 

4.2 

Socio-economic effects ............................................................................. 25 

4.2.1 

4.2.2 

Positive effects arising from provided ecosystem services ................ 26 

Positive effects arising from tourism and recreation .......................... 29 

4.2.3  Negative effects arising from restricted economic development ....... 30 

5  Funding opportunities for the local and regional governments ........................ 31 

 
 
 
6  Consultation and interviews – filling the gaps .................................................. 35 

APPENDIX 1 .......................................................................................................... 49 

Flexibility within the relevant Articles ................................................................... 49 

Implementation Actions Brought by the Commission ............................................ 53 

 
 
 
1  Executive summary  

The  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  form  the  core  of  EU  nature  legislation  by 
providing a common framework that sets standards for nature protection across the 
28 EU Member States, thereby promoting the conservation of natural habitats and 
wild  fauna  and  flora.  The  Natura  2000  network  of  protected  areas  is  one  of  the 
main instruments under the two Directives to achieve this objective. 

Available  studies  suggest  that  costs  resulting  from  the  implementation  of  the 
Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  are  greatly  outweighed  by  the  environmental  and 
socio-economic  benefits  provided  by  them,  particularly  by  the  conservation 
measures  within  the  Natura  2000  network.  Natura  2000  sites  provide  a  range  of 
valuable ecosystem services and contribute to local and regional development, for 
instance,  through  tourism  and  recreation  at  Natura  2000  sites.  Development 
restrictions,  on  the  other  hand,  may  lead  to  forgone  benefits  (opportunity  costs) 
such as in agriculture or in the context of infrastructure projects. 

Despite the overall positive effects of the Natura 2000 network, implementation of 
the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  is  hampered  in  many  cases.  It  was  found  that 
relevant  responsibilities,  requirements  for  consultation  and  public  participation 
were  not  sufficiently  specified  in  the  Habitats  Directive  to  ensure  a  better  co-
operation and coordination between the European Commission and Member States 
as  well  as  within  Member  States.  This  leads  to  problems  in  the  process  of 
designating Natura 2000 sites especially with regards to stakeholder conflicts. 

When it comes to infringement procedures, a review of case law indicates that the 
countries  which  generally  appear  to  be  having  the  most  difficulties  with 
implementation and application of these two Directives are the Southern Member 
States  such  as  Greece,  Italy  and  Spain. These three Member  States  alone account 
for  over  40%  of  all  the  cases  before  the  European  courts.  Overall,  regions  in  the 
Mediterranean  and  the  Macaronesian  biogeographical  regions  face  the  most 
implementation issues. 

Various  implementation  challenges  exist  for  local  and  regional  governments. 
Limited  or  under-qualified  personnel  were  cited  as  key  inhibiting  factors  in  the 
available  literature.  It  was  found  that  there  is  not  necessarily  a  lack  of  funding 
possibilities for conservation measures and management planning for Natura 2000 
sites.  Instead,  it  is  suggested  that  site  managers  and  regional  authorities  need  to 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
improve  their  strategic  approaches  to  site  management  in  order  to  apply  for  the 
different funding programmes and improve the overall investment rate. 

2 

 
 
 
2  Implementation  and  state  of  play  of  the 

Directives and of the Natura 2000 

2.1  Flexibility  of  the  Directives  in  selecting  Natura  2000 

sites 

We  have  assessed  the  flexibility  that  exists  in  the  wording  of  the  Directives  and 
then the variations that exist in practice regarding the designation of Natura 2000 
sites. 

2.1.1 Flexibility within the relevant Articles 

To  summarise,  according  to  articles  3(1),  3(2)  and  4(1)  of  the  Habitats  Directive, 
Member  States  are  required  to  designate  sites  for  the  conservation  of  Annex  I 
habitats and Annex II species conservation based on the criteria of Annex III (Stage 
1).  These  lists  are  then  sent  to  the  Commission.  Based  on  the  criteria  set  out  in 
Annex  III  (Stage  2),  the  Commission  then  establish,  in  agreement  with  each 
Member State, a draft list of Sites of Community Importance (SCI) drawn from the 
Member  States'  lists  identifying  those  which  host  one  or  more  priority  natural 
habitat types or priority species. On the basis of the national lists and by agreement 
with  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  then  adopt  a  list  of  SCIs.  According  to 
Article 4(4) of the Habitats Directive, the Member State concerned must designate 
it as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) no later than six years after the list of 
SCIs was adopted. 

The  deadlines  for  designation  were  between  2007  and  2014,  depending  on  the 
region.  The  list  of  regional  deadlines  is  contained  in  Table  1  in  Appendix  1.  All 
Member  States  have  now  designated  their  sites,  except  Croatia  which  designated 
sites  after  these  deadlines  because  its  accession  only  happened  in  July  2013.  The 
state  of  progress  by  Member  State  in  designating  sufficient  protected  areas  under 
the  Habitats  Directive  is  contained  in  Figure  1  Appendix  1.  In  2013,  only  eight 
Member States (DK, NL, IT, BE, FI, DE, EL, SE) announced sufficient sites. 

For the Birds Directive the process is much simpler.  Under Article 4 of the Birds 
Directive, Member States are obliged to designate all of the most suitable sites as 
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to conserve wild bird species. To assess whether 
Member States have complied with their obligation, the Commission uses the best 
available  ornithological  information.  Where  the  necessary  scientific  information 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
provided by Member States is lacking, national inventories of Important Bird Areas 
(IBA)  compiled  by  the  non-governmental  organisation  Birdlife  International,  are 
used. 

The SPAs and the SACs  make up the Natura 2000 network.  The relevant articles 
for the designation of SACs and SPAs and the potential flexibility in the wording 
within  the  articles  are  presented  in  Appendix  1  of  this  report.  These  can  be 
categorised into types of flexibility that exists within the Directives as summarised 
below: 

  Different  options  for  implementation  such  as  statutory  or  administrative 

(Habitats Directive article 1(h)). 

  Room  for  interpretation  as  in  some  of  the  habitats  in  Annex  I  (Habitats 

Directive article 3(1) and Annex I). 

  Criteria  triggering  additional  options  such  as  the  proportion  of  suggested 
sites  in  relation  to  national  territory  (Habitats  Directive  article  4(2)  and 
Annex III, Stage 2). 

  Flexibility in the wording such as “degree of” etc. (Habitats Directive article 

4(1), Annex I and Annex II, article 4(2), Annex III, Stage 2). 

  Uncertainties  and  subjectivity  e.g.  with  regards  to  quality  of  data  and 
assessment of values for site selection (Habitats Directive 4(1), Annex I and 
Annex II, article 4(2), Annex III, Stage 2). 

Consequently, one can conclude from Table 2 in Appendix 1 that there is a degree 
of  flexibility  within the  articles,  but  in order  to  have  a better  understanding of  its 
relevance, it is necessary to look at the practical implementation of the designation 
process across the Member States. 

2.1.2 Variations in Practice 

The  identification  of  possible  sites  by  Member  States  took  place  in  at  least  two 
rounds in almost all Member States, as a consequence of the Commission wanting 
to  add  additional  sites  to  those  already  selected  (Tromans,  2001).  The  problems 
encountered during the designation process have been widely reported, provoking 
conflicts across a number of Member States during the 1990s. The main reason for 
these  conflicts  was  the  top-down  and  non-inclusive  site  designation  process 
followed  initially  by  most  Member  States.  Member  States  designated  sites  on  the 
basis  of  scientific  criteria  and  existing  scientific  information,  without  consulting 
local  landowners,  civic  groups  or  others  who  were  affected  by  site  designation 
(Paavola et al., 2009). 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In  practice,  the  Member  States  differ  in  the  way  they  designate  sites.  A  study 
analysing  the  designation  in  27  EU  Member  States  was  able  to  distinguish  two 
different  approaches  in  designating  sites  (Van  Apeldoorn,  2009).  One  group  of 
Member  States  favoured  designation  using  a  legal  instrument  (e.g.  ministerial 
decree  or  order)  in  which  a  few  site  characteristics  are  mentioned  but  the  site 
objectives  are  worked  out  in  detail  using  management  plans.  The  other  group  of 
Member  States  developed  designations  using  a  legal  instrument  that  is  more  site-
specific,  because  detailed  site  objectives  and  descriptions  are  presented.  These 
objectives  can  also  be  elaborated  upon  in  a  management  plan.  Apart  from  a  few 
exceptions,  the  Member  States  organise  the  planning  of  the  management  of  the 
Natura 2000 sites separately from the designation process, although often the same 
organisations and government departments are involved (Kruk, 2010). 

Baffert  (2012)  points  out  that  although  this  decentralised  organisation  was 
supposed to allow for an optimal adaptation of the policy to the field‘s needs, the 
European  Parliament  expressed  concern  that  this  degree  of  flexibility  in 
implementation  leads  to  abuses  by  Member  States  when  implementing  EU 
environmental  legislation;  and  that  the  unclear  definition  of  roles  may  also  have 
enabled each institutional actor to shift responsibility for a policy operation to each 
other.  Baffert  also  argues  that  the  mismatch  between  policy  ambition  and  policy 
formulation  stems  from  the  ambiguous  formulation  of  the  Habitats  Directive. 
Article  2(3)  stipulates  that  measures  taken  shall  take  account  of  economic,  social 
and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics but in contrast the 
designation of sites was exclusively based on scientific criteria, it does not impose 
any  consultation  procedure  for  the  sites  designation,  and  only  mentions  this  as  a 
possibility for the establishment of management plans (Baffert, 2012). 

From  the  above,  one can  argue that the  relevant  responsibilities, requirements  for 
consultation and public participation were not sufficiently specified in the Habitats 
Directive  to  ensure  a  better  co-operation  and  coordination  between  the  European 
Commission  and  Member  States  as  well  as  within  Member  States.  The  problems 
encountered in the designation process are therefore not so much dependent on the 
flexibility that exists within the articles of the Directives but rather on the flexibility 
that  follows  from  not  specifying  sufficiently  important  stages  in  the  designation 
process. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
2.2  Implementation and Infringement overview 

Member States that have had problems with implementing the requirements of the 
Directives were identified. Desk based research was conducted analysing case law 
and  publications  (i.e.  European  Commission  Annual  Reports  on  Monitoring  the 
Application of Community Law) to outline uniform implementation issues and to 
seek to identify implementation problems at a regional level. 

2.2.1 Implementation Overview 

There  have  been  four  primary  implementation  issues  concerning  the  Habitats 
Directive in the last decade: 

  The  insufficient  designation  of  important  nature  areas  as  SAC  by  Member 

States (after the deadline). 

  Member  States  authorising  plans  and  projects  (e.g.  golf  courses,  mining, 
tourist  developments),  which  potentially  allow  for  the  destruction,  or 
deterioration, of priority natural habitat. 

  Member  States  not  taking  the  requisite  measures  to  protect  certain  species 

populations. 

  Member States not taking the requisite measures to prevent the deterioration 

of habitats. 

There  have  been  three  primary  implementation  issues  concerning  the  Birds 
Directive in the last decade: 

  The insufficient designation of important bird areas as SPAs under the Birds 

Directive. 

  Member  States  authorising  plans  and  projects  (e.g.  wind  turbines,  power 
lines, highway developments) that have endangered bird species, as the area 
they  were  placed  in  was  an  important  migratory  route  and  resting,  feeding 
and nesting place for those species. 

  Member States not taking the requisite measures to protect wild birds e.g. by 
application  of  rules  on  hunting  and  trapping  (e.g.  either  fixing  these  with 
periods  which  overlapped  with  reproduction/pre-nuptial  migration  periods, 
too generous hunting derogations which were granted on incorrect grounds, 
or turning a blind eye to illegal hunting). 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Also,  a  significant  number  of  new  sites  after  2010  have  been  made  up  of  marine 
sites  (approximately  half).  In  the  past,  the  Commission  has  indicated  in  their 
Annual  Reports  on  Monitoring  the  Application  of  Community  Law  that  further 
significant  progress  as  regards  the  designation  of  marine  areas  is  still  needed, 
especially  offshore  (European  Commission  (g),  2010).  A Marine Biogeographical 
Seminar for the sea regions (Mediterranean, Black Sea, Macaronesian and Atlantic) 
was  organised  in  2009  and  2010  and  proposals  of  SCIs  in  these  regions  were 
evaluated.  Member  States  were  expected  to  have  made  substantial  marine 
designations, both for SCIs under the Habitats Directive and SPAs under the Birds 
Directive, by 2012. 

Another issue that needs to be considered is the enlargement of the European Union 
with  10  new  member  states  (Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia) in 2004, Romania and Bulgaria in 
2007,  and  Croatia  in  2013,  which  means  that  EU  nature  conservation  legislation 
has to be applied to a much larger territory than before. 

2.2.2 Infringement Actions Brought by the Commission 

Despite  the  small  number  of  legal  instruments  in  this  field,  nature  conservation 
legislation  accounts  for  between  a  fifth  and  a  quarter  of  environmental 
infringements. 

The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  European  Commission  considers  in  its  Annual 
Monitoring  Reports  legal  enforcement  mechanisms  for  nature  conservation  in  the 
Member  States  are  often  weak  or  inappropriate  (e.g.  European  Commission  (d), 
2014). Therefore, the Commission receives numerous complaints from citizens and 
NGOs regarding threats to SACs and SPAs. Table 3 in Appendix 1 shows that the 
Commission  can  receive  50  petitions  a  year  relating  to  the  issue  of  nature 
protection.  The  subjects  raised  in  these  petitions  ranged  from  measures  for  the 
protection of Natura 2000 sites to the environmental effects of infrastructure plans 
and projects on designated sites. 

Because  of  the  above,  the  nature  sector  also  accounts  for  the  highest  number  of 
open  environmental  cases.  Table  4  in  Appendix  1  demonstrates  those  open  cases 
concerning  nature  protection  for  the  years  2005  to  2013.  As  well  as  the  high 
numbers  of  complaints  the  Commission  also  considers  in  its  Annual  Monitoring 
Reports the high number of cases relating to these two Directives to be mainly to 
the size/extent of the Natura 2000 sites (e.g. European Commission (d), 2014). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Following  the  designation  deadlines,  the  Commission  launched  a  significant 
number  of  new  infringement  procedures  against  Member  States  which  had  yet  to 
provide  sufficient  designations  for  the  Natura  2000  network,  or  which  have  not 
designated  within  the  deadline  required  by  the  Habitats  Directive.  Since  2007, 
approximately  16  cases  have  been  brought  before  the  European  Court  of  Justice 
(ECJ) (although not all of these cases were for designation). 

According to our calculations, there have been approximately 84 mentions of non-
compliance with  the  Habitats  Directive,  and  99  mentions of non-compliance  with 
the Birds Directive, in the annual monitoring reports of the European Commission 
since 2005 (European Commission (d, e, f, g, h, I, j, k, l) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Table 5 to 8 in Appendix 1 show the breakdown for 
these figures. 

The  countries  that  generally  appeared  to  experience  the  most  implementation 
difficulties  in  relation  to  the  Habitats  Directive  were  the  EU-12  countries.  These 
accounted for 8 of the top 11 places of EU Member States that had been mentioned 
in  a  non-compliance  context  in  the  European  Commission’s  annual  report  (44 
mentions out of 84 total). However, they were also the more likely group to have 
cases  closed  after  reacting  positively  to  legal  proceedings.  Southern  European 
countries  such  as  Italy,  Spain,  Greece  and  Portugal  particularly  seemed  to  have 
experienced difficulties. 

The countries that generally appeared to be experiencing the most implementation 
difficulties with the Birds Directive were 10 of the new EU Member States that had 
joined since 2004 (Croatia did not form part of our statistics because of their very 
recent  accession).  These  accounted  for 50  of  the 99  mentions  of  non-compliance. 
The  other  observation  was  that,  like  the  position  with  the  Habitats  Directive,  the 
Southern  European  countries  such  as  Italy,  Greece  and  Spain  also  particularly 
experienced difficulties in implementing the Birds Directive. 

Table  10  to  27  of  Appendix  1  (using  the  data  from  Table  5  to  8)  examine 
implementation  of  Natura  2000  sites  according  to  biogeographical  regions.  This 
suggests 
in 
implementation have been the Mediterranean and Macaronesian regions. The next 
two  regions  with  the  most  problems  would  appear  to  be  Alpine  regions  and 
Continental regions. 

the  regions  experiencing  by  far 

the  most  difficulties 

that 

Table 28 and Figure 2 of Appendix 1 (using the data from Table 5 to 26) examine 
the  regions  with  the  largest  %  of  sites  to  see  whether  size  is  an  issue  in 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
implementation.  We  found  that  the  Black  Sea  had  the  highest  percentage  of  sites 
but  seemed  to  generally  have  the  least  amount  of  implementation  difficulties. 
However,  the  regions  with  the  next  three  biggest  percentages  of  sites  –  Alpine, 
Macaronesia  and  Mediterranean  all  were  in  the  top  three  rankings  of  regions 
experiencing the most difficulties in implementation. 

2.2.3 Case Law and Biogeographical Regions 

We  also  examined  case  law  in  the  European  Courts  (e.g.  Court  of  First  Instance; 
Court  of  Justice)  to  see  what  picture  this  revealed.  According  to  our  calculations 
there  have  been  approximately  75  cases  in  the  European  courts  involving  the 
Habitats Directive and Birds Directive, since 2004. Table 29 in Appendix 1 shows 
the breakdown of these figures. 

Table  30  in  Appendix  1  indicates  that  the  countries  that  generally  appear  to  be 
having  the  most  difficulties  with  implementation  and  application  of  these  two 
Directives are the Southern Member States such as Greece, Italy and Spain. These 
three  Member  States  alone  account  for  over  40%  of  all  the  cases  before  the 
European courts. 

We  also  examined  the  detail  of  all  the  75  cases  to  see  if  we  could  identify  the 
specific  location(s)  involved,  so  we  could  then  work  out  which  regions  in  which 
countries  were  experiencing  problems.  Regions  that  have  had  implementation 
problems  (based  on  European  court  cases)  would  seem  to  be:  Apulia  and 
Sardinia (Italy),  Zakinthos  (Greece),  Andalucia  (Spain),  Walloon  (Belgium), 
Alentejo (Portugal), Styria and Lower Austria (Austria). 

We  also  used  the  research  above  identifying  the  specific  location(s)  involved,  to 
then work out in which biogeographical regions these problems occurred. Table 31 
shows that unsurprisingly (bearing in mind the findings above) that the countries in 
the  Mediterranean  biogeographical  region  had  the  highest  number  of  court  cases 
(over one third). Three other biogeographical regions made up the majority of all 
the  other  cases  –  Alpine,  Continental  and  Atlantic  (nearly  two  thirds).  The 
remaining regions (Black Sea, Steppic, Pannonian and Boreal) had very few court 
cases  among  them  –  although  this  could  in  part  be  owed  to  the  fact  that  they 
contain accession countries from the last decade. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.4 Legal Implementation and Enforcement Priorities 

The priorities in the nature sector have largely remained the same over the last ten 
years. Legal enforcement work in this sector, as in other environmental sectors, has 
been  prioritised  in  the  interest  of  the  efficient  pursuit  of  the  objectives  of 
environment  legislation.  The  approach  to  be  taken  in  the  implementation  of  EC 
two 
environmental 
Communications  on  implementing  European  Community  Environmental  Law 
(European  Commission  (a),  2008),  and  Improving  the  Delivery  of  Benefits  from 
EU Environment Measures (European Commission (p), 2012). 

the  Commission’s 

in  particular 

laid  down 

law 

in 

is 

The  Commission  have  generally  focussed  on  the  main  implementation  priorities: 
the  core  obligations  of  the  directives  were  effectively  addressed  (i.e.  correct  and 
complete transposition of the Directives). The Commission have often given high 
priority  to  pursuing  infringement  cases  concerning  significant  non-conformity  of 
national implementing legislation with the Birds and Habitats Directives 

More  specifically,  they  have  also  given  case  priority  to  insufficient  site 
designations (mainly in the EU -12 Member States) and the lack of adequate legal 
protection and management regimes for the Natura 2000 sites, including the lack of 
designation  of  SCIs  as  SACs  where  the  deadline  has  expired.  As  per  the  non-
compliance  results  in  the  Annual  Reports  legal  action  seems  to  have  particularly 
been  pursued  against  the  EU-12  Member  States.  Several  Member  States  have 
increased  the  number  of  designated  areas  following  infringement  procedures 
launched by the European Commission and several of these procedures have been 
closed in 2010. Another key focus has also been on addressing breaches concerning 
big  infrastructure  projects  or  interventions  involving  EU  funding  that  have 
significant adverse impacts on Natura 2000 sites. 

The  Commission  has  also  increasingly  decided  to  launch  horizontal  infringement 
cases  in  nature  protection  enforcement.  The  Commission  has  a  number  of  times 
sought  for  interim  measures  from  the  ECJ.  Several  Member  States  have  reversed 
decisions following intervention by the Commission. 

2.2.5 Non-Legal Strategies to Aid Implementation 

The  Commission  has  taken  five  non-legal  measures  to  improve  implementation 
(European Commission (q), 2011): 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Firstly, they have focussed on proactive cooperation with Member States: this 
includes  the  awareness-raising,  drafting  of  interpretative  guidance  documents 
for the main provisions of the  Habitats and Birds Directives; the development 
of targeted guidance for economic sectors such as the port sector, wind energy, 
the  non-energy  extractive  industry,  and  inland  waterways,  which  have 
particular  challenges  in  relation  to  the  legislation;  training  of  the  competent 
authorities;  regular  contacts  with  the  national,  regional  and  local  authorities, 
and the establishment of the “Green Enforce Network“. 

  Secondly,  they  have  concentrated  on  improvements  in  the  handling  of 
complaints: specific methods have been developed with the purpose of helping 
the  complainants  (i.e.  ad  hoc  nature  supplementary  information  form,  which 
guides  the  complainants  as  regards  the  information  needed  to  evaluate  a 
complaint)  and  making  more  effective  use  of  complaints  (i.e.  grouping  of 
complaints in order to focus on systemic breaches). Those measures have had a 
significant  effect,  as  they  resulted  in  the  reduction  of  the  implementation 
deficit. 

  Thirdly,  an  expert  group  on  the  management  of  Natura  2000  was  established. 
The aim of this is develop and exchange information on best practice in Natura 
2000  management,  focusing  in  particular  on  SAC  designation,  integrated 
management  approaches,  reconciling  nature  conservation  and  economic 
development objectives, and increased integration in other EU policies. 

  Fourthly, work to assure adequate financing of Natura 2000 through EU funds 
was  undertaken  and  a  communication  on  that  issue  was  released  in  2011. 
A guidance  handbook  was  produced  in  2013  (European  Commission  (m), 
2013). 

  Finally,  the  Commission  in  2012  launched  a  new  process  at  biogeographical 
level in order to address jointly with Member States the conservation needs of 
the respective Natura 2000 sites. This multi-stakeholders' co-operation process 
at  biogeographical  level,  including  seminars,  workshops  and  cooperation 
activities  to  enhance  effective  implementation,  management,  monitoring, 
financing and reporting of the Natura 2000 network. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3  Specific Issues on Local and Regional Level 

2.3.1 Involvement in Site Designations 

The  designation  process  involves  a  number  of  actors  where  coordination  is 
required. The certain degree of control asserted on a higher administrative level and 
the  reliance  on  implementation  on  lower  administrative  level  has  brought  tension 
between top-down and bottom-up approaches. A 2003 Commission memorandum 
indirectly  acknowledged  an  initial  lack  of  communication  about  Natura  2000  and 
recognised  the  need  to  include  a  large  range  of  actors  in  its  consultation  strategy 
(European  Commission  (r),  2003).  While  underlining  that  consultation  was  not 
really  needed  at  the  sites  designation  stage,  officials  from  DG  Environment 
admitted  that  some  mistakes  ‘were  made  at  the  beginning  regarding  information, 
communication, and public awareness’. 

A  report  entitled  ‘Current  practices  in  solving  multiple  use  issues  of  Natura 2000 
sites’ assessed the main conflicts on the process of information and communication 
during  site  selection  (European  Commission  (c),  2010).  These  issues  provide  an 
overview  of  the  problems  that  the  local  and  regional  authorities  faced  during  the 
selection of sites and are listed below: 

  Exclusion  from  the  site  selection  process  of  concerned  stakeholders  as 

private landowners, municipalities, local businesses.  

  No, inadequate, or ineffective information (poor communication) especially 
regarding  the  effects  of  site  designation  for  current  and  future  use  creating 
uncertainty and misinformation amongst concerned stakeholders. 

  Inadequate consultation procedures. 
  Use of scientific data and information and the legislation (both of which are 
set  out  in  institutionalised  language  that  is  inaccessible  to  the  majority  of 
stakeholders,  or  is  perceived  as  a  weapon  or  completely  inflexible  object 
against  which  it  is  almost  impossible  for  a  layperson  to  construct  an 
argument;  the  result  is  a  feeling  of  powerlessness,  frustration  and  despair 
resulting in conflicts. 

  Delaying 

the  designation  process  after 

consultations 
frustration on the part of owners and occupiers of land. 

thereby  creating  uncertainty,  deterioration 

initial  announcements  and 
trust  and 

in 

  The  designation  process  reignites  old  animosities  and  previous  conflicts 

which are then replayed on a different stage. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The above conflicts seem to indicate that the national and regional authorities are 
not always at fault, and that some actions at EU/national level can trigger actions at 
a  local/regional  level  if  the  local  and  regional  authorities  have  not  been  properly 
involved.  The  report  on  ‘Multilevel  governance  dynamics  in  the  Western  Med’ 
states that Natura 2000 has shown that the supranational level can open up areas of 
action  at the regional  level  (Cugusi  and Stocchiero,  2010). The  report argues  that 
the  local  and  regional  authorities  have  not  been  promoted  by  the  higher 
administrative levels, as in the case of, for example, Cohesion Policy. However, it 
should be noted that in several Member States, regional authorities were in charge 
of  site  selection,  so  that  they  might  have  responsibility  for  some  of  the  conflicts 
listed above. 

In the drawing up of the policy (ascending process of EU policy making), central 
governments  remain  the  sole  legitimate  representatives  of  the  domestic  interests. 
Notwithstanding  the  role  played  by  regional  authorities  in  the  implementation  of 
the network, the interactions between these actors and the supranational levels are 
weak. 

2.3.2 Setting up Conservation Measures: Management Plans 

The  management  of  Natura  2000  sites  varies  widely  between  the  Member  States, 
because of a range of factors, such as traditions in nature conservation, population 
density  and  differing  governance  structures.  Management  plans  for  Natura  2000 
sites  are  compulsory  in  about  half  of  the  Member  States,  and  for  those  Member 
States that they are not compulsory, they are often written anyway as guidance to 
stakeholders  and  administrations.  In  some  countries  management  plans  are  only 
obligatory  for  specific  sites,  or  for  some  kinds  of  land  use,  depending  on  legal 
specifications (Kruk, 2010). 

There  are  great  differences  between  the  Member  States  in  setting  up  common 
management  plans.  They  are  usually  written  for  an  individual  site,  or  for  several 
sites  grouped  for  geographical,  ecological  or  planning  reasons  to  lower  the 
administrative  load  and  to  simplify  the  arrangement  of  management  measures 
(Kruk, 2010). The approach of joint management of a group of several similar sites 
with  one  management  plan  brings  together  different  stakeholders,  actors  and 
local/regional authorities based on territorial similarities and ought to improve co-
operation  and  make  the  process  more  cost-effective.  Joint  management  is  also 
likely to improve the coherence of the Natura 2000 network as those developing the 
management plan have a broader understanding of the conservation needs, as well 
as social and economic opportunities that go beyond those of considering a single, 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
smaller site. It could also be argued that a joint approach would make it easier to 
identify and capitalise upon the benefits that ecosystem services can bring, instead 
of the sites being isolated from their surroundings. 

In  a  few  countries,  such  as  Finland  and  Denmark,  regional  master  management 
plans  are  drafted  in  that  organise  the  overall  coordination  of  regional  work  on 
Natura  2000  sites  and  coordinate  the  development  and  priority  of  management 
plans for sites or groups of sites, from a regional perspective (Kruk, 2010). 

2.3.3 Prioritised Action Frameworks 

To  strengthen  coordination  and  integration  of  financing  for  Natura  2000,  the 
European Commission together with the Member States have agreed that in 2014-
2020 financing of the network should be based on Prioritised Action Frameworks 
(PAFs).  The  purpose  of  these  documents  is  to  establish  a  national  or  regional 
strategy for protection and management of Natura 2000, within the context of the 
relevant EU financial instruments, and to identify funding opportunities. The aim of 
PAFs  is  therefore  to  ensure  adequate  allocations  for  Natura  2000  under  different 
funds and related programmes (Kettunen, 2014). 

Article  8  of  the  Habitats  Directive  requires  that  the  PAFs  are  to  be  revised  every 
two years and consequently the PAFs can help the local and regional authorities in 
identifying and contributing to relevant funding opportunities. In other words local 
and regional authorities can use existing PAFs as a source for identifying available 
co-financing  opportunities  for  Natura  2000,  and  they  can  also  contribute  to  the 
future  revision  of  PAFs  in  order  to  ensure  that  local  and  regional  Natura  2000 
funding needs are properly incorporated into the PAFs. 

2.4  Opinions about the Directives 

Gantioler  et  al.  (2010)  undertook  stakeholder  interviews  in  23  Member  States, 
including representatives of national governments,  NGOs, stakeholder groups and 
academia.  The  interviewees  were  requested  to  estimate  how  important  they  saw 
Natura  2000  in  terms  of  providing  different  ecosystem  services  at  local,  national 
and global level respectively. The study found that stakeholders’ consider benefits 
to function mainly at local and national level. The most relevant ecosystem services 
provided by Natura 2000 sites were the mitigation of climate change, purification 
of  water  and  maintenance  of  water  flows,  safeguarding  natural  pollinators, 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
preservation  of  landscape  and  amenity  values,  and  support  of  tourism  and 
recreation.  In  addition,  the  role  of  Natura  2000  in  preserving  genetic  and  species 
diversity  was  recognised  to  be  of  high  importance.  The  assessment  also  revealed 
that the appreciation of Natura 2000 related ecosystem services was in general the 
highest  in  the  Eastern  Member  States  (i.e.  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Hungary, 
Poland,  Romania  and  Slovakia).  On  the  other  hand,  the  Southern  Member  States 
(i.e. Cyprus, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain) seemed to have the highest 
appreciation  of  different  cultural  services  provided  by  Natura  2000.  Overall, 
Natura 2000  was  seen  to  play  an  important  role  in  maintaining  a  number  of  key 
ecosystem services across different Member States. 

Gantioler et al. (2010) conducted also interviews to establish public’s perception of 
the benefits of the network and found that the knowledge about the socio-economic 
benefits  was  generally 
that 
Natura 2000  represents  a  burden  on  economic  well-being,  particularly  among 
landowners  and  farmers.  Local  authorities  and  national  policy  makers  were  more 
likely to have an understanding of the benefits of Natura 2000, but this was more 
typical for those working in environmental sectors. 

the  predominant  perception  was 

low.  Often, 

Snethlage et al. (2012) assessed in more detail the opinions of Natura 2000 for the 
agricultural,  forestry,  and  tourism  and  recreation  sectors  based  on  the  views  of 
conservation  organisations  and  government  agencies 
in  Denmark,  France, 
Germany, the Netherlands and Poland. This study found that agriculture is widely 
perceived  as  the  sector  where  most  challenges  emerge  in  relation  to  the 
implementation of Natura 2000, whereas, the tourism, sports and recreation sector 
is most aware of how Natura 2000 is important for the development of their sector. 

2.5  Stakeholder positions towards the REFIT process 

A  desk-based  review  was  conducted  to  evaluate  the  range  of  existing  opinions 
towards  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  fitness  check  and  evaluation  process. 
While  the  search  identified  several  published  opinions  in  the  form  of  official 
position statements, articles and feature pieces, the authors were largely NGOs (at 
the national or EU level). 

In  2012,  DEFRA  conducted  a  review  of  the  implementation  of  the  Habitats  and 
Wild  Birds  Directives  and  its  impact.  In  their  key  findings,  they  mention  the 
following points for improving the Directives and therefore show their approval for 
the REFIT process: 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  High  complexity  of  the  Directives  and  corresponding  guidelines  result  in  a 

lack of transparency and understanding by implementing authorities; 

  Authorisation  process  is  divided  across  several  authorities  that  in  case  of 

lacking integrated management will increase costs for implementation; 

  Lack of data for the assessment of sites; 
  Insufficient capacities and capabilities of all implementing bodies. 

Few opinions which were written specifically by local or regional authorities or a 
given Member State were identified. This highlights the relevance and necessity of 
targeting  this  aspect  in  the  planned  public  consultation  and  structured  interviews 
with local/regional authorities (see section 6). The opinions that were identified are 
outlined below, in alphabetical order by author organisation: 

  Austrian  Federal  Economic  Chamber  –  “AFCO  supports  a  legally  reliable 
implementation  of  EU  nature  protection  legislation,  which  must  take  the 
attraction  of  Europe  as  a  business  location  and  the  creation  of  jobs  into 
account.  These  economic  interests  should  be  considered  stronger  in  the 
future” (AFCO, 2014: 12)1. 

  BirdLife International and Cement Industry – “We are deeply concerned by 
the suggestion that the Birds and Habitats Directives should be merged and 
“modernized”. A protracted process of re-legislation at the EU level, and the 
inevitable uncertainties and social conflicts it would bring would harm both 
nature conservation and security of investments. We would rather call on the 
Commission to focus on improving implementation, in full cooperation with 
all stakeholders in order to identify any specific problems and address them 
within  the  existing  legal  framework  on  the  basis  of  openness,  scientific 
evidence and objectives-driven policy making”2. 

  Environmental  Justice  Organisations,  Liabilities  and  Trade  (ejolt)  – 
“The inclusion in the mandate of orders to consider changing the EU Nature 
protection  legislation,  pre-empting  the  results  of  the  ongoing  fitness  check, 
suggests a high level decision to weaken biodiversity protection in the EU” 
(Meynen, 2014)3. 

1 https://www.wko.at/Content.Node/Interessenvertretung/Europa-und-Internationales/Europa/REFIT-Interim-
report2014remarksAFCO.pdf 
2 http://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2014_10_8%20JOINTAPPEAL-BL-
CEM%20%28signed%29.pdf 
3 http://www.ejolt.org/2014/09/eu-plans-to-cancel-environmental-policies/ 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  IUCN – “An assessment of these directives can be useful for fine-tuning and 
improving  their  effectiveness,  but  a  review  that  aims  to  make  them  'fit  for 
purpose' and turn them into a 'modern piece of legislation' leaves dangerous 
room  for  interpretation  in  the  context  of  deregulation.  There  is  a  clear  risk 
that this overhaul could weaken Europe's nature legislation …”(Bas, 2014)4. 

  RSPB – “In the current climate, there is no doubt what the consequences of 
the  Directives  being  opened  would  be…  A  view  to  ‘merging  them  into  a 
more  modern  piece  of  legislation’…  is  thinly-veiled  political  speak  for 
weakening the protection they afford to nature across Europe, and provides 
the  clearest  political  indication  yet  of  the  likely  consequences  of  amending 
the Directives” (Farrar, 2014)5. 

Additional  organisations  are  currently  also  preparing  position  papers.  The  UK’s 
Wildlife  and  Countryside  Link  organisation,  for  example,  has  formed  a  ‘REFIT 
Task and Finish Group’6 to address the Habitats and Birds Directives review. While 
recognising  room  for  improvement,  they  are  of  the  opinion  that  revising  the 
legislation  should  take  place  at  a  later  date  when  the  political  climate  is  less 
uncertain and thus when there is less risk of weakening the Directives.  They have 
previously submitted an opinion7 relating to Defra’s UK Review of the Directives. 

4 https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/opinion/eu-commission-overhaul-could-weaken-europes-nature-
legislation 
5 http://www.rspb.org.uk/community/getinvolved/b/specialplaces/archive/2014/11/20/the-laws-that-protect-nature-
for-nature-s-sake.aspx 
6 http://www.wcl.org.uk/habsregs.asp 
7 See http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/link_response_to_nature_directives_060212.pdf 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
3  Implementation  challenges  for  the  local 

and regional governments  

While  every  Member  State  is  responsible  for  preparing,  implementing  and 
managing  its  Natura  2000  sites,  decisions  are  extremely  varied  regarding  the 
delegation of responsibilities in this regard. Typically, the national Environmental 
Ministry  shares  and/or  assigns  power  to  the  local  and  regional  Environmental 
Authorities, newly established management authorities, national park or equivalent 
protected area authorities, institutes for nature conservation and biodiversity and/or 
regional  and  local  governments  (municipalities)  or  provinces  (Kurk,  2010).  This 
chapter  explores  challenges  arising  for  the  final  group  -  local  and  regional 
governments – when they are assigned responsibility for implementing the Habitats 
and Birds Directives. 

Although information is quite limited on this topic and would benefit greatly from a 
targeted consultation, the five main challenges identified in the literature are listed 
below.  Anecdotal  evidence  is  then  provided  to  highlight  Member  States’ 
experiences  with  these  interrelated  factors.  Unless  indicated  otherwise,  the 
following  information  stems  from  the  report  “Information  and  communication  on 
the  designation  and  management  of  Natura  2000  sites  -  Organizing  the 
management  in  27  EU  Member  States”  (Kruk  et  al,  2010).  Identified  challenges 
include: 

  Insufficient personnel capacities; 
  Lack of knowledge and/or skills of management staff; 
  Insufficient  finances  designated  for  implementing  the  Habitats  and  Birds 

Directives; 

  Unsuitable  financing  mechanisms  resulting  in  a  lack  of  management  plans 

for implementation; 

  Communication barriers between authorities and/or with stakeholders; and 
  Lacking or weak political commitment and support for biodiversity policy. 

Limited  or  under-qualified  personnel  were  cited  as  key  inhibiting  factors.  In 
Hungary,  for  example,  management  plans  are  to  be  written  by  the  National  Park 
Directorates and regional environmental authorities. Although the area of protected 
sites  increased  with  the  designation  of  Natura  2000  sites,  the  capacities  of  the 
responsible administrations remained the same. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
Although  an  array  of  EU  policy  instruments  are  intended  to  support  Natura  2000 
management,  funds  allocated  to  or  accessed  by  Member  States  for  such  purposes 
have been deficient. A recent report8 estimates that Member States only allocated a 
maximum  of  20%  of  the  funding  that  is  required  for  successfully  implementing 
Natura 2000. In Germany, this is due in part to difficulties in accessing such funds - 
particularly  for  adopting  the  agricultural  funding  schemes  for  forestry-related 
Natura  2000  activities  (Möhring  &  Schäfer  et  al.,  2014;  Entenmann  &  Schaich, 
2014). Difficulties can be linked, for example, to the contracts for funding within 
the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, which have a duration of 
one  to  five  years  and  thus  do  not  take  account  of  the  turnaround  time  of  forest 
ecosystems. This has resulted in some cases in insufficient financial incentives due 
to  the  high  bureaucratic  burden  for  the  forest  owners  (Entenmann  &  Schaich, 
2014). Another formal issue of the financing instruments is the delineation of site 
to apply for area dependant funding that proved to be infeasible for smaller forest 
plots (Entenmann & Schaich, 2014). 

Another  barrier  in  securing  financing  is  connected  to  the  development  of 
management plans. The failure to produce such plans can result in a lack of funds 
for implementing the foreseen activities (Schneemann, 2014). Apart from the lack 
of personnel capacities as observed in Hungary, the lack of a clear methodology to 
draft management plans from the vast amount of scientific data was reported as an 
underlying  cause  for  Spain’s  delayed  drafting  of  management  plans  (Herrero 
Corral, 2008). 

The  resulting  insufficient  finances  and  inadequate  budgets  designated  for 
Natura 2000  related  activities  have  consequences  in  a  number  of  Member  States 
and  regions. In  Greece,  a  lack  of  secured  funding  for  management  administration 
personnel  results  in  short  staff  contracts  and  consequent  gaps  in  skills  and 
knowledge.  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Bulgaria  and  Estonia  are  further  examples  of 
countries  in  which  inadequate  financial  resources  for  local  management  authority 
personnel  and  capacity  building  exercises  threaten  the  realisation  of  conservation 
status  goals.  In  Latvia  and  Lithuania  specifically,  lacking  funds  have  resulted  in 
delayed implementation of management plans by as long as four to five years. As 
these  plans  are  only  valid  for  10  years,  this  issue  is  likely  to  become  even  more 
critical. 

Two  main  types  of  communication  barriers  were  cited:  those  existing  between 
authorities and those occurring with stakeholders. In Spain, coordination is lacking 

8 European Commission (t), 2014, pp. 32. 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
between  environmental  and  agricultural  administrations  and  has  resulted  in  an 
impaired  ability  to  make  funds  readily  available  for  Natura  2000  management 
(European Commission (t), 2014). Despite targeted communication campaigns and 
initiatives,  complications  persist  in  Hungary  between  government  authorities  and 
stakeholders  as  well  as  between  environmental  authorities,  Nature  Park 
Directorates and Inspectorates. Frequent turnovers in responsible personnel within 
ministries  or  local/regional  management  authorities  can  exaggerate  existing 
challenges  in  this  regard  and  ultimately  even  lead  to  distrust  and  resentment 
amongst certain stakeholder groups. The top-down approval of management plans 
for Natura 2000 sites without the involvement of stakeholders is another source for 
distrust  towards  government  authorities  and  resentment  towards  compliance  with 
the nature conservation objectives (Entenmann & Schaich 2014). 

Insufficient  political  support  or  commitment  can  act  as  a  further  barrier  to  the 
functioning  of  management  authorities.  This 
the 
prioritisation  of  other  sectors  and  policies  over  biodiversity  policy  either  on  a 
national or regional level due to any of the aforementioned factors (e.g. inadequate 
knowledge, lack of staff experience or insufficient funding). Several former Eastern 
European countries cited this as a weakness towards the effective management of 
Natura 2000 sites. 

includes,  for  example, 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
4  Economic,  environmental  and 

social 

benefits and disadvantages 

This  section  reviews  the  available  literature  on  the  environmental  and  socio-
economic  effects  of  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  (particularly  Natura  2000) 
with a focus on the regional level in Europe. The analysis is based on the following 
conceptual framework (adapted from Defra, 2007): 

Establishment & 
Management of 
Natura 2000 Sites 

Impacts on 
Ecosystems  

Changes in 
Ecosystem 
Services 

Impacts on Human Welfare 
(ecosystem services and 
wider socio-economic effects) 

4.1  Environmental effects 

Although  the  main  aim  of  designating  Natura  2000  sites  is  the  protection  and 
conservation of key habitats and species, habitat connectivity is a central feature of 
the  conservation  goal.  Nature 
the  Natura  2000  network,  which  supports 
conservation  efforts  show  a  variety  of  other  environmental  benefits  which  can 
broadly be described as the provision  of ecosystem services like flood protection, 
water quality control and air quality improvement to name only a few. Chapter 4.2 
portrays the provision of such services from the socio-economic perspective. Based 
on the reportings of the EU Member States9, the following section summarises the 
effects  of  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  at  the  regional  level  for  birds  and 
habitats. 

4.1.1 The state of the birds at the regional level 

While half of the bird populations are reported as being secure, around a sixth are 
regionally threatened and another sixth are near threatened, declining or depleted. 
There were slightly more decreasing breeding bird population trends in the short-
term than in the long-term trends. Wintering bird populations appear to have fared 
better than breeding bird populations, although data was only available for a subset 
of birds, mostly waterbirds. 

9 For detailed information, see upcoming EEA report ‘State of nature in the EU: Results from the Reporting under 
the Nature Directives 2007-2012’. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Many bird species and subspecies in Annex I of the Birds Directive are increasing. 
These results suggest that conservation action supported by the Birds Directive is 
having a positive effect on their populations. However, a high proportion of these 
birds remain threatened. In addition, Annex I birds that have a SAP have a higher 
proportion  of  increasing  population  trends,  confirming  the  effectiveness  of  such 
plans. 

(hunting, 

Overall, the most frequently reported pressures or threats for birds were changes in 
agriculture,  followed  by  modification  of  natural  processes  and  use  of  living 
poaching).  Agricultural 
poisoning 
resources 
pressures/threats are particularly associated with grasslands or heathland and scrub 
ecosystems,  and  include  modification  of  cultivation  practices  and  changes  in 
in 
grazing  regimes.  Modifications  of  natural  processes 
hydrological regimes and loss and fragmentation of habitats. 

include  changes 

trapping, 

and 

4.1.2 The state of the (non-bird) species at the regional level 

Assessments  of  conservation  status  were  produced  for  each  biogeographical  or 
marine  region  in  which  a  species  or  habitat  occur  based  on  the  Member  State 
reports.  Only  about  a  fifth  of  the  species  assessments  have  a  ‘favourable’ 
conservation  status,  while  over  half  are  ‘unfavourable’.  A  sixth  of  the  EU 
assessments  are  unknown.  Trends  in  conservation  status  show  that  while  a  small 
portion  of  ‘unfavourable’  species  assessments  are  improving,  a  fifth  are  stable, 
another fifth are declining and a sixth are unknown. 

Conservation  status  assessments  vary  significantly  between  biogeographical 
regions, particularly  among  the  marine  regions. The biogeographical  regions with 
the highest proportion of assessments as ‘favourable’ are the Black Sea and Alpine, 
while the highest proportion of ‘unfavourable-inadequate’ conservation status was 
the  Pannonian  region.  The  Atlantic  and  Boreal  regions  have  the  highest  share  of 
‘unfavourable-bad’ assessments. 

The  proportion  of  EU  assessments  for  marine  regions  varied  from  zero  (Marine 
Black Sea) to 20% (Marine Baltic) with a high percentage of ‘unknowns’ in most 
regions. However, the number of species assessed is low, especially in the marine 
Black Sea (three species) and the Marine Baltic (five species). 

The two most frequently reported high-ranked pressures and threats for species are 
the  modification  of  natural  conditions  and  agriculture,  followed  by  natural 
processes.  The  ‘modification  of  natural  conditions’,  for  example,  is  credited  with 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
over  two  thirds  of  the  reported  pressures  on  fish,  a  third  of  the  pressures  on 
molluscs and a quarter of the pressures on amphibians. ‘Disturbances due to human 
activities’ accounts for less than a tenth of the high-ranked pressures, but for a fifth 
of the pressures on mammals. 

4.1.3 The state of Annex I habitats at the regional level 

Sixteen percent of the habitat assessments are ‘favourable’, while 47% are reported 
as  ‘unfavourable-inadequate’  and  30%  as  ‘unfavourable-bad’.  Only  4%  of 
‘unfavourable’  habitat  assessments  are  improving,  while  33%  are  stable  and  30% 
of ‘unfavourable’ habitat assessments are declining. 

The  number  of  EU  regional  habitat  assessments  as  ‘unknown’  has  decreased 
significantly from the last reporting period (from 13% to 7%), mostly due to Spain, 
which reported a high number of assessments as ‘unknown’ for the previous period. 

The Alpine, Macaronesian and Steppic regions stand out with comparatively high 
shares  of  ‘favourable’  conservation  status  (26%  -  50%),  while  the  habitats  in  the 
Atlantic  and  Boreal  regions  have  a  particularly  high  proportion  of  ‘unfavourable-
bad’  assessments  (each  over  50%).  A  large  proportion  of  habitats  in  the  Marine 
Atlantic region were reported as improving (43%), while the share of assessments 
reported  as  declining  for  the  Marine  Baltic  region  exceeds  70%,  followed  by  the 
Marine  Black  Sea  region  with  43%.  However,  the  number  of  marine  habitats  is 
very low. 

The two most frequently reported high-ranked pressures and threats for habitats are 
agriculture and modification of natural conditions (each 19%). Commonly reported 
agricultural  pressures  and  threats  include  fertilisation,  changes  in  grazing  by 
the  abandonment  of  pastoral  systems/lack  of  grazing.  For 
livestock  and 
‘modification  of  natural  conditions’,  these  include  changes  in  hydrology  such  as 
river engineering and water abstraction from groundwater. 

4.2  Socio-economic effects 

The  following  section  summarises  the  socio-economic  effects  of  the  Habitats  and 
Birds Directives with a focus on Natura 2000 sites. It distinguishes between welfare 
benefits provided by ecosystem services and direct effects on the local and regional 
economy, particularly through tourism and recreation. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2.1 Positive effects arising from provided ecosystem services 

Gantioler  et  al.  (2010)  concluded  that  the  existing  examples  of  the  benefits  of 
Natura  2000  underline  the wide  range of  ecosystem  services  that are provided by 
the  network  –  e.g.  tourism  and  recreation,  water  quality,  flood  control  and  wider 
cultural services. The authors found that: 

  A number of examples have demonstrated that the benefits can be larger than 
the associated costs. In Ireland, the total rate of return on government support 
to  the  Burren  park  was  estimated  (conservative)  to  be  around  353  –  383%, 
(with  or  without  tourism),  and  235%  if  all  operating  costs  of  the  farming 
programme and all direct payments are considered; 

  Natura  2000  sites  can  be  particularly  important  for  local  and  regional 
economic development as they help attract financing and offer an important 
source of direct and indirect employment; 

  Even  though  our  knowledge  on  the  value  of  biodiversity,  ecosystems  and 
their  services  is  steadily  increasing,  there  is  still  an  apparent  lack  of 
quantitative/monetary  and  well-documented  information  on  the  socio-
economic benefits associated with Natura 2000. 

Ten  Brink  at  al.  (2011)  further  investigated  the  socio-economic  benefits  provided 
by  individual  Natura  2000  sites.  They  found  that  various  studies  are  available 
which  show  the  benefits  provided  by  different  Natura  2000  sites.  These  studies 
indicate that different sites deliver different benefits and that estimates of the value 
of these vary widely. In the context of their study, an extensive review of studies 
assessing the value of services delivered by Natura 2000 sites was undertaken. The 
analysis focused on studies that: 

  Covered a wide range of ecosystem services provided by the sites in question 

in order to enable a reasonably complete assessment of benefits; 

  Provided  estimates  of  the  annual  per  hectare  value  of  benefits  or  enabled 
such  an  estimate  to  be  derived,  as  estimating  benefits  on  a  per  hectare  per 
annum basis provides a standardised basis for the analysis and upscaling of 
values; 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Related  to  terrestrial  and  coastal  sites  only;  marine  sites  were  considered 

separately. 

The  review  provided  35  different  estimates  of  the  value  of  the  benefits  of 
Natura 2000  sites  from  20  different  studies.  A  summary  of  suitable  estimates  is 
given in Table I. All values had been estimated on a per hectare per annum basis 
and had been converted to Euros at 2011 prices. 

The  per-hectare  values  were  derived  from  estimates  of  the  value  of  services 
delivered by each site divided by the area of the site. The available estimates give a 
wide  range  of  values  for  the  benefits  of  Natura  2000  sites,  ranging  from  just  less 
than €50 per hectare per year to almost €20,000 per hectare per year. 

The  range  of  values  identified  underscores  that  sites  are  not  uniform  while 
estimates  of  the  value  of  the  services  they  deliver  also  vary  according  to  the 
methods used and data available. 

Variations in value estimates reflect differences in: 

  The location and characteristics of different sites (including their condition, 

scarcity and substitutability);  

  The ecosystem services delivered, which vary by habitat and location relative 

to people and natural resources; 

  The value placed on those services by people and by markets;  
  The  extent  to  which  studies  have  been  able  to  estimate  ecosystem  service 

delivery and its value; and  

  The  methods  used  in  valuation,  and  the  assumptions  used  in  benefit 

estimation. 

Table I: Summary of valuation studies, by site (source: Ten Brink et al., 2011) 

Site 

Ecosystem services 

Site value /ha/year  
(€, 2011) 

Reference 

Pond Complex of 
Central-Limburg, 
Belgium 

Scheldt estuary, Belgium 

Skjern River restoration, 
Denmark 

Protected forests in 
eastern Finland 

Provisioning services, tourism 
and recreation 

1,285 

Desmyttere and Dries 
(2002)  

Regulating and provisioning ES 
(various) 
Biodiversity/ existence values, 
recreation, water purification and 
regulation, fibre production 

3,990 

Ruijgrok, E.C.M. (2007) 

1,218 

Dubgaard et al (2002)  

Non market values 

403 

Kniivila et al (2002) 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Site 

Ecosystem services 

Site value /ha/year  
(€, 2011) 

Reference 

Social benefits of N2K site + hay 
production 
Ecosystem services 

229 

375 

Hernandez and Sainteny 
(2008) 
Martin-Lopez et al (2007) 

La Crau, France 

Donana, Spain 
Sites protected for Large 
Blue butterfly, Landau, 
Germany 

Burren, Ireland 

Wadden Sea N2K sites, 
Netherlands 
River N2K sites, 
Netherlands 
Lake and marsh N2K 
sites, Netherlands 
Dune N2K sites, 
Netherlands 
High fen and sandy soil 
N2K sites, Nl 
Stream valley and hills 
N2K sites, Nl 

Białowieża Forest, 
Poland 

Pico da Vara / Ribeira do 
Guilherme, Azores, 
Portugal 

Lower Green Corridor, 
Romania 

Range of services and values 
including non-use values 

Cultural services: tourism & 
recreation; Broader socio-
economic benefits: beneficial 
externalities  
Provisioning, regulating and 
cultural services 

Use and non use values 

Tourism, recreation, non use 

Flood protection, recreation, non 
use 

Recreation, non use 

Provisioning, amenity, 
recreation, non-use 
Recreation, amenity & existence, 
freshwater, range of provisioning 
services (e.g. food, timber), 
tourism, pest control. 
Water provision, quality & 
regulation. Recreation and eco-
tourism. Landscape and amenity 
values. 
Provisioning services: fisheries, 
forestry, animal fodder; 
Regulating services: nutrient 
retention; Cultural services: 
recreation 

Provisioning services, recreation, 
water purification 

Use and non use values 

Use and non use values 

Danube floodplains (7 
countries, 60% in 
Romania) 
Clyde Valley Woods, 
Scotland 
Waukenwae and Red 
Mosse, Scotland 
River Bladnoch, Scotland  Use and non use values 
Sands of Forvie, Scotland  Use and non use values 
Tips of Corsemaul and 
Tom Mor, Scotland 
Strathglass Complex, 
Scotland 
Lewis and Harris, 
Scotland 
Sites of special scientific 
interest in England and 
Wales (~80% are N2K) 

Use and non use values 

Use and non use values 

Use and non use values 

Range of 7 key ecosystem 
services (gross) 

28 

6,932 

Watzold et al. (2008) 

2,714 

Rensburg et al. (2009) 

3,650 

5,324 

5,944 

Kuik et al (2006) 

Kuik et al (2006) 

Kuik et al (2006) 

13,198 

Kuik et al (2006) 

1,274 

4,974 

2,799 

642 

Kuik et al (2006) 

Kuik et al (2006) 

Pabian and Jaroszewicz 
(2009) 

Cruz and Benedicto 
(2009) 

512 

Ebert et al. (2009) 

572 

Gren et al (1995) 

5,665 

Jacobs (2004)  

14,769 

Jacobs (2004)  

5,341 
4,404 

Jacobs (2004)  
Jacobs (2004)  

19,763 

Jacobs (2004)  

87 

155 

Jacobs (2004)  

Jacobs (2004)  

7,926 

GHK (2011) 

 
Site 

Ecosystem services 

Social benefits of N2K site 

Social benefits of N2K site 

Wallasea Island, England  Range of key ecosystem services 
Derwent Ings , England 
Skipworth Common, 
England 
Upper Teasdale, England 
Ingleborough National 
Nature Reserve, England 
X Dale, England  
Alkborough Flats, North 
Lincolnshire  
Humber Estuary, England  Amenity and recreation, carbon  
Amenity and recreation, carbon, 
Blackwater Estuary, 
fisheries  
England 

Social benefits of N2K site 
Recreation, food and fibre, non 
use values 
Recreation and non use values 

Range of ecosystem services 

Site value /ha/year  
(€, 2011) 
1,447 
1,318 

5,987 

1,150 

290 

49 

4,508 

847 

4,371 

Reference 

Eftec (2008)  
Willis, K.G (1990)  

Willis, K.G (1990)  

Willis, K.G (1990)  

Natural England (2009) 

Natural England (2009) 

Everard, M. (2009) 

Luisetti et al (2010) 

Luisetti et al (2010) 

By supporting sustainable food production, including organic farming, maintenance 
of soil fertility, maintenance of pollinators and maintenance of natural pest control, 
Natura  2000  sites  have  a  positive  impact  on  food  security  in  the  EU.  They  also 
have a positive impact on the health sector, for instance by providing opportunities 
for research and innovation for the pharmaceutical industry (Kettunen et al., 2014). 

4.2.2 Positive effects arising from tourism and recreation 

When  it  comes  to  the  assessment  of  wider  socio-economic  effects  related  to 
Natura 2000,  benefits  related  to  tourism  and  recreation  well  described  in  the 
available  literature.  In  a  comprehensive  study,  BIO  Intelligence  Service  (2011) 
estimated  the  economic  value  of  the  benefits  provided  by  tourism  and  recreation 
related to the Natura 200 network. According to the definition of the authors, these 
benefits  include  the  economic  impacts  derived  from  visitor  expenditure,  the 
recreational  benefits  that  refer  to  use  values,  and  the  employment  supported  by 
Natura 2000. The study states that: 

  In  2006,  between  1.2  and  2.2  billion  visitor  days  to  Natura  2000  were 
estimated, representing a total amount of spending between 50 and 90 billion 
Euros. Total visitor expenditure generated between 50 and 85 billion Euros 
of additional income in the economy. 

  Natura 2000 directly supported around 8 million FTE jobs each year during 

the period 2006-2008, and indirectly 4 million FTE jobs. 

At the site level, a number of case studies exemplify the positive effects of Natura 
2000  sites  on  the  local  and  regional  economy  (see  Gantioler  et  al.,  2010).  For 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
instance, Neidlein and Walser (2005) estimated that the Wattenmeer national park 
in Germany is responsible for around 23% of total tourists in the region and that the 
associated gross economic income amounted to over of over €100 million in 2003. 
Similarly,  Job  and  Metzler  (2005)  state  that  the  yearly  profits  associated  with 
tourism in the three German national parks Bayerischer Wald, Berchtesgarden and 
Müritz  amount  to  almost  €14  million  per  year.  For  Finland,  Metsähallitus  (2009) 
estimated that the total annual revenue linked with visitor spending in the existing 
national parks was €70.1 million. The authors found that €1 of public investment to 
protected areas provided €20 in returns. 

To  sum  up,  Natura  2000  sites  can  have  positive  effects  on  local  and  regional 
economies, both in terms of visitors spending and in terms of direct and indirect job 
creation.  As  the  case  of  Finland  (Metsähallitus,  2009)  shows,  the  benefits  arising 
from  protected  areas  might  very  well  outweigh  the  costs  associated  to  their 
designation and management. 

4.2.3 Negative effects arising from restricted economic development  

European Commission ((b), 2010) and Birdlife (2003) present several cases which 
highlight the use of conflicts with regards to structural development in Natura 2000 
sites. For example, the Danube delta (Tulcea district, Romania) was designated as 
one  large-scale  Natura  2000  site  including  the  settlement  areas.  Here,  the  local 
population  has 
to  incur  structural  development 
(construction of buildings and especially wind turbines, European Commission (b), 
2010). 

to  employ  higher  efforts 

Another prominent example is the planned construction of the Via Baltica highway 
in  Poland  (European  Commission  (b),  2010).  The  planned  trajectory,  which  was 
chosen  for  economic  reasons,  passed  through  several  Natura  2000  sites,  amongst 
others  through  the  Rospuda  Valley  which  is  home  to  a  variety  of  Natura  2000 
species and habitats. The plan was changed to exclude the vulnerable areas. 

Byron  &  Arnold  (2008)  evaluated  the  plans  for  the  priority  projects  within  the 
Trans-European  Network:  Transport  (TEN-T)  and  their  overlap  with  Natura  2000 
sites for EU25 countries. As a result, they stated that 8% of the SPAs and 4% of the 
SCIs were affected by the plans. Transport infrastructure therefore poses a threat to 
biodiversity conservation. However, good practice examples show that conflicting 
goals  do  not  need  to  result  in  threats  to  these  plans  if  goals  are  streamlined  and 
adapted accordingly in an early stage. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5  Funding  opportunities  for  the  local  and 

regional governments 

The  current,  insufficient  funds  through  lacking  accession  of  funding  sources  and 
resultant  consequences  for  Natura  2000  implementation  and  management  have 
been  highlighted.  This  chapter  looks  towards  the  2014-20  financing  period  and 
highlights  EU  and  other  funding  opportunities  that  are  available  for  local  and 
regional  governments  to  finance  e.g.  the  drafting  of  management  plans  and 
guidance documents and the implementation of capacity building and management 
activities. The following information is largely drawn from the guidance document 
‘Financing Natura 2000 Guidance Handbook Part 1 – EU funding opportunities in 
2014-2020’ (Kettunen et al., 2014). 

While Natura 2000 is based on the principle of solidarity and thus envisioned to be 
financed by the Member States, Article 8 of the Habitats Directive directly outlines 
the  obligation  of  the  EU  to  co-finance  the  delivery  of  related  conservation 
measures. The Commission has underlined the importance of Union funding within 
the next  multiannual  financial  framework  in  its  Communication  on  ‘A  budget for 
Europe 2020’ (European Commission (u), 2011) and Working Paper on ‘Financing 
Natura 2000’ (European Commission (q), 2011). An emphasis is placed on utilising 
the diverse EU sectoral funds for the next financing period, including the: European 
Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD),  European  Maritime  and 
Fisheries Fund (EMFF), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European 
Social  Fund  (ESF),  Cohesion  Fund,  European  financial  instrument  for  the 
environment  (LIFE)10  and  Framework  Programme  for  research  and  innovation 
(Horizon  2020).  There  are  also  important  possibilities  for  regions  to  look  into 
available Operational Programmes outside of the thematic Objective 6. 

Due to variations in funding allocations, the thematic concentrations that depend on 
the  fund/region  and  factors  such  as  the  GDP  per  capita  and  GNI/head,  not  all  of 
these funds are available to all Member States or regions but need to be evaluated 
for  suitability  and  applicability  for  the  different  Member  States.  This  results  in 
considerable differences in their importance and rate of uptake across the EU. Kruk 
et al. (2010) outline that the rural development ‘pillar’ of the Common Agriculture 
Policy, for example, is widely utilised across all Member States as it enables agri-
environmental management payments to be paid to farmers or be applied for local 

10 LIFE is the only dedicated EU funding instrument targeting biodiversity and Natura 2000, as opposed to delivering 
broader EU development goals. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
on-site trainings to support management  actions.  Taking the case of Hungary, the 
management  of  Natura  2000  grassland  sites  is  primarily  financed  by  agri-
environmental  contracts. As  LIFE  is  the EU funding  instrument  directly  targeting 
biodiversity  and  Natura  2000,  it  is  central  to  realise  the  aims  of  the  network 
(particularly  regarding  aspects  like  stakeholder  participation  and  implementing 
management  measures  and  restoration  projects).  It  has  also  been  a  key  tool  for 
financing actions by private bodies or NGOs (European Commission (t), 2014). 

Nevertheless,  only  9-19%  of  the  financial  needs  of  the  network  were  covered 
between  2007-2013  (Kettunen  et  al.,  2014),  leaving  significant  room  for 
improvement  in  the  use  of  EU  funds.  The  Commission,  in  agreement  with  the 
Member  States,  has  thus  begun  promoting  Prioritized  Action  Frameworks  (PAF) 
based  on  provisions  of  Article  8  of  the  Habitats  Directive  in  order  to  identify 
strategic priorities/measures for 2014-2020 as well as corresponding EU financing 
instruments (European Commission (t), 2014). 

The European Commission has also begun to emphasise the largely untapped value 
of utilising innovative approaches and market-based instruments (including private 
funding)  to  supplement  the  aforementioned  resources  (European  Commission  (t), 
2014). This is underscored by Kettunen et al. (2014), who highlight the potential of 
e.g.  Payments  for  Ecosystem  Services,  product  markets,  corporate  markets,  offset 
schemes, debt instruments or fiscal incentives. Of central importance to all of these 
approaches  is  clearly  outlining  the  range  of  (public  and  private)  benefits  and 
services provided by the network to the various stakeholder groups. 

Public-private partnerships, for example, hold large potential to make larger future 
contributions  to  Natura  2000.  In  Austria,  such  cooperation  models  have  already 
been  established  among  NGOs  like  the  Austrian  League  for  Nature  Conservation 
and  other  public  bodies  or  research  institutes  (Kirchmeir  et  al.,  2012).  In  some 
cases, NGOs can also take the lead in developing management plans on their own 
initiative,  including  arranging  funds  for  writing  the  plans  and  the  executing  its 
management (Kruk et al., 2010). 

Incentives or tax breaks are other innovative tools recommended to be more widely 
applied. In Abruzzo, Italy, for example, special incentives have been developed for 
voluntary actions which are not legally binding (European Commission (t), 2014). 
France  has  also  enabled  exemptions  from  land  tax  on  un-built  property  and 
increased  access  to  public  funds  as  a  benefit  of  signing  a  Natura  2000  charter, 
particularly in relation to forest habitats (European Commission (t), 2014). 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In summary, it is not a lack of funding possibilities for conservation measures and 
management planning for Natura 2000 sites that resulted in the low investment rate 
during the last programming period. Site managers and regional authorities need to 
improve  their  strategic  approaches  to  site  management  in  order  to  apply  for  the 
different  funding  programmes.  Often,  this  requires  a  high  degree  of  technical 
capacity for proposal development which oftentimes is lacking. 

33 

 
 
 
 
6  Consultation  and  interviews  –  filling  the 

gaps 

The  following  questions  are  proposed  to  be  included  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Region’s  survey  and  utilised  for  the  subsequent  targeted  interviews.  The  issues 
raised highlight gaps which were identified in the desk research and aspects which 
would benefit from more targeted responses and regional representation. 

Given  the  aims  of  this  study  as  outlined  in  the  File  Note  and  the  groups  of 
individuals  who  are  most  familiar  with  the  aspects  wanting  to  be  addressed, 
‘public’ consultation was understood within this context to refer to key stakeholder 
groups and particularly local and regional authorities and site managers. Therefore, 
those aspects that are insufficiently answered by the  survey or for which regional 
representativeness  could  be  improved  can  be  utilised  in  a  second  round  of  data 
gathering via the envisioned interviews where the interviewee can elaborate more 
in  depth.  Several  questions  are  relevant  to  both  target  groups.  However,  few 
questions are specifically designed for the site managers or the LRA. 

to 

Regarding  the  selection  of  specific  regions  or  local/regional  authorities  to  be 
invited  for  interviews,  the  research  indicates  that  LRA  located  within  the 
Mediterranean  biogeographical  region  belong  to  a  key  target  group  facing 
challenges  in  their  implementation  of  the  Directives.  More  specifically,  LRA  that 
also  take  into  account  the  ESPON  regions  could  then  be  selected  from  this 
overarching  list  based  on  the  court  cases  identified.  Accordingly,  it  is  also 
recommended 
the  same 
biogeographical  region  in  order  to  facilitate  the  comparison  of  experiences  and 
highlight  success  factors  that  may  be  replicable.  In  addition,  representatives  of 
regions  which  have  been  part  of  Interrreg  IVc  projects  should  be  considered  for 
interviews.  Finally,  depending  on  the  breadth  of  survey  responses  received, 
underrepresented  regions,  regions  which  have  identified  struggles  and  means  to 
overcome  these  challenges,  successful  ‘best  practice’  regions,  etc.  can  all  be 
considered as valuable to complement this study and the survey findings with more 
in depth information. 

regional  approaches 

identify  positive 

from 

The  choice  for  regions  is  based  on  literature  research  of  good  and  bad  practice 
examples of regions as well as issued law cases. Based off of this, the selection of 
regions is exemplary and does not provide a complete picture. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
In  Spain,  several  regions  with  implementation  issues  could  be  identified. 
The NUTS 3 regions Huesca, Teruel or Zaragoza in Aragon and La Coruña, Lugo, 
Ourense or Pontevedra in Galicia were selected based on their lack of management 
plans and the fact that Galicia is one of the autonomous regions that lags far behind 
in  implementation  (WWF,  2012).  Additionally,  Aragon  is  situated  in  the 
Mediterranean biogeographical region. The province Catalonia started in 2006 as a 
pioneer for the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives (WWF, 2012). 
The lack of management plans in Catalonia might be a good indicator for obstacles 
to  implementation.  Therefore,  one  of  the  regions,  Barcelona,  Girona,  Lleida  or 
Tarragona, should be invited for the interviews. 

With regards to other countries facing implementation constraints, the selection of 
regions  was  based  on  law  cases  that  were  issued,  taking  the  infringements  as  an 
indicator  for  implementation  constraints.  Regions  that  have  had  implementation 
problems (based on European court cases) would seem to be: Apulia and Sardinia 
(Italy),  Zakinthos  (Greece),  Andalucia  (Spain),  Wallonia  (Belgium),  Alentejo 
(Portugal),  Styria  and  Lower  Austria  (Austria).  It  is  suggested  to  invite 
representatives of those regions for structured interviews. 

Several Interreg projects have been carried out that focus on Natura 2000 sites and 
bring  the  implementation  of  the  Directives  forward.  Those  could  have  provided 
good  practice  examples.  In  the  following,  projects  and  regions  involved  are 
mentioned: 

  ECO  –  LAGUNES  (Environmental  management  of  lagoon  areas  with 
aquaculture  uses)  2009  –  2011:  Barcelona  (ES),  Aude  (FR),  Algarve  (PT), 
Cadiz (ES), Hérault (FR), Gironde (FR). 

  RECHARGE.GREEN  (Reconciling  Renewable  Energy  Production  and 
Nature in the Alps) 2012 – 2015: Cuneo (IT), Gorenjska (SI), Belluno (IT), 
Bludenz-Bregenzer Wald & Rheintal-Bodenseegebiet (AT), Haute-Savoie & 
Savoie (FR). 

  TRANSECONET  (Transnational  Ecological  Networks)  2009  –  2012: 
Moravskoslezský  kraj  (CZ),  Jihomoravský  kraj  (CZ),  Zlínský  kraj  (CZ), 
Győr-Moson-Sopron  (HU),  Nordburgenland  (AT),  Südburgenland  (AT), 
Vas (HU), Savinjska (SI), Pomurska (SI). 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Survey questions 

Contact information: 

  Name, email, phone number. 

  Institution, Department. 

  Region, Country. 

  Type of authority or association (European/national/regional/local). 

  Position held. 

  Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up phone interview? (Y/N). 

Questions specifically to site managers: 

1.  In  case  your  administration  went  through  the  process  of  drafting  site 

management plans, did you face problems during this process? (Y/N) 

a.  If  yes,  what  type  of  problems  did  you  encounter  (e.g.  problems  due  to 
technical  capacity,  spatial  or  land-use  planning,  occurring  stakeholder 
conflicts)? 

b.  Which stakeholders were involved in the process? 

2.  In case that the LRA had the responsibility to draft the management plans, how 

did the LRA and the site management cooperate for establishing the plan? 

3.  How  is  the  Natura  2000  site  utilised?  How  is  it  marketed  (e.g.  tourism  offers, 

agriculture)? 

Questions specifically to LRAs: 

1.  Have  projects  been  conducted  in  your  region  that  made  an  appropriate 

assessment necessary? (Y/N) 

a.  If yes, please describe the process of this assessment in detail. 
b.  What  is  the  result  of  the  assessment?  How  was  it  perceived  by  the 

stakeholders involved? 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  Does  your  administration  cooperation  with  LRA  with  different  focus  areas 
(tourism, nature conservation, transport, regional development etc.)? (Y/N) 

a.  If yes, for which instances do the LRAs cooperate?  
b.  Please describe the type of cooperation in more detail. 

3.  Have efforts been made to involve LRA in the selection and/or scope decision-

making processes of Natura 2000 at the national level? (Y/N) 

a.  If  yes,  please  describe  the  mechanisms  in  place  to  support  LRA 

involvement. 

b.  More  specifically,  what  role  have  local  authorities  played  in  the  design 

and implementation processes? 

Questions relevant to both target groups: 

1.  Has  your  organisation  produced  any  statements  or  documents  outlining  its 
position  towards  the  EU  Fitness  Check  of  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives? 
(Y/N) 

a.  If yes, what are the main opinions expressed (positive or negative). 

2.  Are  you  aware  of  problems  within  your  region  that  have  been  encountered  in 
implementing  the  Habitats  and  Birds  Directives  (e.g.  administrative,  financial, 
stakeholder disputes, lack of scientific knowledge, etc)? (Y/N) 

c.  If yes, please describe the nature of the problem(s) and what efforts have 

been made to resolve these issues. 

3.  Does  your  administration  have  sufficient  financial  resources  to  implement  the 

measures required under the Habitats and Birds Directives? (Y/N) 

d.  If no, please specify which areas/aspects are not sufficiently financed and 

the consequences of these gaps. 

e.  Can  any  costs  to  your  administration  be  identified  which  are  not 

proportional to the benefits received? Please specify. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Which  funding  sources  are  utilized  by  your  administration  to  finance  the 

implementation of the Directives? (please fill in as appropriate) 

Fund/ Programme 

Please  specify  share  of  total 

utilized funds (%)  

EU  Cohesion  fund,  EU  Regional  Development 

Fund, EU Social Fund  

EU  Rural  Development  Fund,  EU  Maritime  & 

Fisheries Fund 
LIFE Programme  
Framework programme for research & innovation  
National financing 
Regional funds 
INTERREG 
Public private partnerships (please specify) 
Other (please specify) 

5.  Are  there  any  underlying  reasons  why  more  funds  than  just  those  being 
currently utilized by your administration (see question 5) have not been made 
use of? (Y/N) 

a.  If yes, please specify which funds have not been utilized due to specific 

reasons and provide an explanation. 

6.  Do you know of any examples of ‘innovative funding’ that have been utilized 
within your region or in other areas to support implementation of the  Habitats 
and Birds Directives? (Y/N) 

a.  If yes, please explain. 

7.  Are  you  aware  of  any  regionally  or  locally  focused  cost/benefit  assessments 
associated with your Member State’s implementation of the Directives?  (benefits 
include  environmental  improvements,  ecosystem  services  provided,  and  positive  economic  impacts; 
costs  include  administrative  costs,  management  costs  and  negative  economic  impacts  including 
opportunity costs) (Y/N) 

a.  If yes, please include the names and/or links. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.  Taking  into  account  the  costs  and  benefits  potentially  resulting  from  the 
implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives as outlined in the previous 
question,  do  you  think  that  your  region  is  predominantly  positively  or 
predominantly negatively affected? Please specify. 

9.  Does your administration have sufficient personnel resources to implement the 

measures required under the Habitats and Birds Directives? (Y/N) 

a.  If  no,  please  specify  the  specific  implementation  aspects  in  which 
capacities  are  insufficient  (e.g.  planning,  management,  enforcement, 
compliance, etc). 

10. In your view, what are the main benefits and disadvantages of the Directives? 
(e.g.  restrictions  on  spatial  planning,  inhibited  economic  development,  better 
quality  of  life,  decreased/increased  regional  GDP,  improved  landscape 
attractiveness, etc) 

11. Where do you see current shortcomings in the Habitats and Birds Directives? 

a.  Please  outline  any  recommendations  you  or  your  administration  have 

which could help to address these gaps. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7  Bibliography 

Baffert, C. (2012). ‘Participatory Approaches in the Management of Natura 2000: 
When EU Biodiversity Policy gets Closer to its Citizens’ (College of Europe). 
Barberan,  R.;  Egea,  P.  and  Perez,  L.  (2005).  ‘The  cost  of  Natura  2000  in  Spain’, 
Euro. Env. 15(3), 161-174. 

Bassi,  S.;  Mazza,  L.;  ten  Brink,  P.;  Hjerp,  P.;  Baroni,  L.  and  Portale,  E.  (2011). 
‘Opportunities for a better use of indicators in policy-making: emerging needs and 
policy recommendations’, Deliverable D7.2 of the IN-STREAM project. 

Beunen,  R.K.;  Van  Assche,  M.;  Duineveld,  M.  (2013).  ‘Performing  failure  in 
conservation  policy.  The  implementation  of  European  Union  directives  in  the 
Netherlands’. Land Use Policy 31 (1): 280-288. 

BIO  Intelligence  Service  (2011).  Estimating  the  economic  value  of  the  benefits 
provided  by  the  tourism/recreation  and  Employment  supported  by  Natura  2000, 
Final Report prepared for European Commission - DG Environment. 

Birdlife  (2003).  ‘Conflict  Areas  Between  the  TEN-T  and  Nature  Conservation’. 
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – BirdLife in the UK. 

ten  Brink,  P.;  Badura,  T.;  Bassi,  S.;  Daly,  E.;  Dickie,  I.;  Ding,  H.;  Gantioler,  S.; 
Gerdes,  H.;  Kettunen,  M.;  Lago,  M.;  Lang,  S.;  Markandya,  A.;  Nunes,  P.A.L.D.; 
Pieterse,  M.;  Rayment,  M.;  Tinch,  R.  (2011).  ‘Estimating  the  Overall  Economic 
Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network’, Final Report to the 
European  Commission,  DG  Environment  on  Contract  ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. 
Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, Brussels 2011. 

Byron,  H.  &  Arnold,  L.  (2008).  ‘TEN‐T  and  Natura  2000:  the  way  forward  -  An 
assessment of the potential impact of the TEN‐T Priority Projects on Natura 2000’, 
Final report. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – BirdLife in the UK. 

Confédération  Européenne  des  Propriétaires  Forestiers  (CEPF)  (2009).  ‘Report 
from a joint NATURA 2000 Workshop with the EU Commission. Implementation 
of the legislation from a forest owner perspective’. 

Cour des Comptes (2008). ‘Report on implementation of the Natura 2000 network 
in Europe’, Court of Accounts of France (eds.). 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cugusi,  B.  &  Stocchiero,  A.  (2010).  ‘Multilevel  governance  dynamics  in  the 
Western  Mediterranean:  Lessons 
the  Medgovernance  project’ 
(European Regional Development Fund). 

learnt  from 

Davis,  M.;  Gerdes,  H.  and  Muehlmann,  P.  (2014).  ‘Multilevel-governance  of  our 
natural  capital:  the  contribution  of  regional  and  local  authorities  to  the  EU 
Biodiversity  Strategy  2020  and  the  Aichi  Biodiversity  Targets’  (Ecologic  and 
ICLEI). 

De  Blust,  G.;  Kruk,  R.W.;  Van  Apeldoorn,  R.C.  and  Sier,  A.R.J.  (2010).  ‘Natura 
2000  -Information  and  communication  on  the  designation  and  management  of 
Natura 2000 sites. Main report 3: Towards Integrated Management’ (Alterra). 

Defra  (2007).  ‘An  introductory  guide  to  valuing  ecosystem  services’,  Department 
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London. 

Defra (2012). ‘Report of the Habitats and the Wild Birds Directive Implementation 
Review’, HM Government, March 2012. 

Entenmann,  S.  &  Schaich,  H. 
Umsetzungsmöglichkeiten 
Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) e.V., Berlin. 

(2014). 
die 

durch 

‚Natura  2000 

im  Privatwald: 
EU-Naturschutzfinanzierung‘, 

European  Centre  for  Nature  Conservation  (ECNC)  (2009).  ‘Workshop  Report 
Conflict Management in the Natura 2000 Network, 18 June 2009’. 

European  Commission 
Community Environmental Law’ (COM (2008) 773. 

‘Communication  on 

(a), 

Implementing  European 

European  Commission  (b),  ‘Dealing  with  Conflicts  in  the  Implementation  and 
Management of the Natura 2000 Network – Best Practice at the Local / Site Level 
(lot 3). A review of 24 Best Practice case studies’ (Eurosite 2010). 

European  Commission  (c),  ‘Current  practices  in  solving  multiple  use  issues  of 
Natura  2000  sites:  Conflict  management  strategies  and  participatory  approaches’ 
(Alterra 2010). 

European  Commission  (d),  ‘31st  Annual  Report  on  monitoring  the  application  of 
EU law – 2013’ [COM(2014) 612] (European Commission, 2014). 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European  Commission  (e),  ‘30th  Annual  Report  on  monitoring  the  application  of 
EU law – 2012’ [COM(2013) 726] (European Commission, 2013). 

European  Commission  (f),  ‘29th  Annual  Report  on  monitoring  the  application  of 
EU law – 2011’ [COM(2012) 714] (European Commission, 2012). 

European  Commission  (g),  ‘28th  Annual  Report  on  monitoring  the  application  of 
EU law – 2010’ [COM(2011) 588] (European Commission, 2011). 

European  Commission  (h),  ‘27th  Annual  Report  on  monitoring  the  application  of 
EU law -2009’ [COM(2010) 538] (European Commission, 2010). 

European  Commission  (i),  ‘26th  Annual  Report  on  monitoring  the  application  of 
EU law - 2008’ [COM(2009) 675] (European Commission, 2009). 

European  Commission  (j),  ‘25th  Annual  Report  on  monitoring  the  application  of 
EU law - 2007’ [COM(2008) 777] (European Commission, 2008). 

European  Commission  (k),  ‘24th  Annual  Report  on  monitoring  the  application  of 
EU law - 2006’ [COM(2007) 398] (European Commission, 2007). 

European  Commission  (l),  ‘23rd  Annual  Report  on  monitoring  the  application  of 
EU law - 2005’ [COM(2006) 416] (European Commission, 2006). 

European  Commission  (m),  Financing  Natura  2000  in  2014-2020  –  Guidance 
Handbook, [ENV.B.3/SER/2012/002] (European Commission, 2013). 

European  Commission  (n),  ‘Factsheet.  The  Economic  Benefits  of  Natura  2000’ 
(European Union, 2013). 

European  Commission  (o),  ‘National  summary:  The  Netherlands  Article  17’ 
(European Commission, 2008). 

European  Commission  (p),  ‘Communication  on  Improving  the  delivery  and 
benefits  from  EU  environment  measures:  building  confidence  through  better 
knowledge and responsiveness’ (COM (2012) 95). 

European  Commission  (q),  'Financing  Natura  2000  -  Investing  in  Natura  2000: 
Delivering  benefits  for  nature  and  people',  12.12.2011  SEC(2011)  1573  final 
(European Commission, 2011). 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European  Commission  (r)  MEMO  on  Commission  strategy  to  protect  Europe’s 
most  important  wildlife  areas  –  frequently  asked  questions  about  NATURA  2000 
<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/2003_memo_natu
ra.pdf> (European Commission, 2003). 

European  Commission  (s),  ‘21st  Annual  Report  on  monitoring  the  application  of 
EU law - 2003’ [COM(2004) 839] (European Commission, 2004). 

European  Commission  (t),  ‘Establishing  conservation  measures  for  Natura  2000 
Sites’ (European Commission, 2014). 

European  Commission  (u),  ‘A  budget  for  Europe  2020’  [COM(2011)  500  final], 
part I (European Commission, 2011). 

European  Parliament  (2007).  ‘Follow-Up  Of  The  Territorial  Agenda  And  The 
Leipzig Charter: Towards A European Action Programme For Spatial Development 
And Territorial Cohesion’. 

Ferranti,  F.;  Beunen,  R.  and  Speranza,  M.  (2010).  ‘Natura  2000  Network: 
A Comparison  of  the  Italian  and  Dutch  Implementation  Experiences,’  Journal  of 
Environmental Policy and Planning 12:3. 

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

Grodzinska-Jurczak,  M.  &  Cent,  J.  (2011).  ‘Expansion  of  Nature  Conservation 
Areas: Problems with Natura 2000 Implementation in Poland?’  Environ. Manage. 
47(1): 11–27. 

Herrero  Corral,  G.H.  (2008).  ‘Configuración  de  la  Red  Natura  2000  en  España: 
Análisis  comparativo  por  Comunidades  Autónomas.  Anales  de  Geografía,  28(2), 
pp 85-109. 

IUCN  (2005).  ‘Implementation  of  Natura  2000  in  New  EU  Member  States  of 
Central Europe. Assessment Report’. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JNCC  (2014).  ‘Catalogue  of  Case  Law  Related  to  Articles  of  the  EU  Birds  and 
Habitats Directives’ – User Guide Version 1.0. 

Job, H. & Metzler, D. (2005). ‘Impacts of largeBscale protected areas on regional 
economies’. Natur und Landschaft, 80. Jahrgang — Heft 11. 

Kaljonen,  M.E.;  Primmer,  G.;  De  Blust,  G.;  Nijnik,  M.  and  Külvik,  M  (2007). 
‘Multifunctionality and biodiversity conservation – institutional challenges’. In T.J. 
Chmielewski  (Ed.),  Nature  Conservation  Management:  from  idea  to  practical 
results,  European  Commission  6th  Framework  Programme,  ALTER-Net  - 
Lublin/Lodz, Helsinki, Aarhus p.53-69 (PWZ Print). 

Kettunen, M.; Torkler, P.; Rayment, M. (2014). ‘Financing Natura 2000 Guidance 
Handbook.  Part  1  –  EU  funding  opportunities  in  2014-2020’,  a  publication 
commissioned by the European Commission DG Environment (June 2014). 

Kirchmeir,  H.;  Köstl,  T.;  Zak,  D.;  Getzner;  M.  (2012).  ‘BE-Natur:  BEtter 
management  and  implementation  of  NATURa  2000  sites’.  WP3:  Transnational 
joint  strategy  and  tools  for  the  better  management  and  implementation  of  Natura 
2000 sites. Individuation of gaps in the management and implementa-tion of Natura 
2000 sites (gap analysis), Final report, Vienna. 

Kruk,  R.W;.  De  Blust,  G;  Van  Apeldoorn,  R.C.;  Bouwma  I.M.  and  Sier,  A.R.J. 
(2010).  ‘Natura  2000.  Information  and  communication  on  the  designation  and 
management of Natura2000 sites. Main report 2: Organizing the management in 27 
EU Member States’ (Alterra). 

Machin, G. (2004). ‘Protecting bird habitat of European importance - the view from 
Basses Corbieres’, Environmental law Review 6(3): 174-189. 

Metsahallitus (2009). Kansallispuistojen ja retkeilyalueiden kävijöiden rahankäytön 
paikallistaloudelliset vaikutukset (Report 3017/52/2009) 16 pp. 

McCauley,  D.  (2008).  ‘Sustainable  development  and  the  "governance  challenge": 
the French experience with Natura 2000,’ Euro. Env. 18(3): 152-167. 

Ministry  of  ANF  (2007).  ‘Nota  van  Antwoord.  Inspraakprocedure  aanwijzing 
Natura 2000 gebieden’, (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuuren Voedselkwaliteit,the 
Netherlands). 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mocsari,  J.  (2004).  ‘Multilevel  Governance.  The  Implementation  of  the  Habitats 
Directive in Hungary. Missing Details Behind the big Picture’ (OEUE). 

Möhring,  B.;  Schaefer,  S.;  Graf  von  Hatzfeldt,  N.;  von  Butler,  C.;  Dieter,  M.; 
Brodale,  H.;  Röhl,  J.;  Buschalsky,  H.;  Stoll,  S.  and  Raupach,  C.  (2014). 
‘Finanzielle  Instrumente  zur  Umsetzung  von  Naturschutzleistungen  im  Wald’, 
Gemeinsame  Arbeitsgruppe  des  Ausschusses  für  Betriebswirtschaft  und  des 
Ausschusses  für  Recht,  Raumordnung  und  Umwelt.  Report  for  German  Forestry 
Management Counsil (DFRW). 

Neidlein;  H.C.  &  Walser;  M.  (2005).  ‘Natur  ist  Mehr  Wert’.  Oekonomische 
Argumente zum Schutz der Natur, Bundesamt fuer Naturschutz, Skripten 154. 

Niedziałkowski,  K;  Paavola,  J.  and  Jędrzejewska.  B.  (2012).  ‘Participation  and 
protected areas governance: the impact of changing influence of local authorities on 
the conservation of the Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland’. Ecology and Society 
17(1): 2. 

Paavola,  J.;  Gouldson,  A.  and  Kluvankova-Oravska,  T.  (2009).  ‘Interplay  of 
Actors,  Scales,  Frameworks  and  Regimes  in  the  Governance  of  Biodiversity’, 
Environmental Policy and Governance 19(3): 148-156. 

Piazzi,  A;  Konstadakopoulos,  K;  Wiśniewska,  H  and  Proniewicz,  M  (2012). 
‘Natura  2000  Management,  Regional  Development  Funding  as  Part  of  the 
Integrated funding approach for biodiversity’ (Surf Nature). 

Schneemann, Y. (2014). ‘NATURA 2000 in Thüringen: Evaluation der Umsetzung 
von  NATURA  2000  in  Thüringen‘,  commissioned  by  BÜNDNIS  90/DIE 
90/DIE  GRÜNEN 
GRÜNEN  Landtagsfraktion  Thüringen.  BÜNDNIS 
Landtagsfraktion Thüringen, Erfurt. 

Sier,  A.R.J.;  Van  Apeldoorn,  R.C.;  De  Blust;  G.  and  Kruk,  R.W.  (2009). 
‘Information  and  communication  on 
the  designation  and  management  of 
Natura2000 sites. A proposal for a Natura2000 partner award scheme’. Main report 
4. (Alterra). 

Snethlage, M.; Delbaere, B.; Fernandez, P.; García, L.; Ferreira, M. and Kaandorp, 
M.  (2012).  ‘Sectoral  Experience  with  Natura  2000’,  ECNC  Group,  Tilburg  / 
Leiden. 138 p. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stejskal,  V.  (2007).  ‘Nature  conservation  and  landscape  protection  including  the 
Natura 2000 network in the Czech legal system’, J.E.E.P.L. 4(2): 117-126. 

Sundseth, K. & Roth, P. (2013). ‘Study On Evaluating And Improving The Article 
6.3 Permit Procedure For Natura 2000 Sites’ (Ecoystems Ltd). 

TSO  (2000).  HM  Government,  Select  Committee  on  Environment,  Transport  and 
Regional Affairs, ‘Twentieth Report, UK Biodiversity’. 

Tromans, S. (2001). ‘Challenging enterprise? The designation of European habitats 
sites and national dilemmas’, Environmental Law Review 3(61). 

Unnerstall, H. (2008). ‘Public Participation in the Establishment and Management 
of  the  Natura  2000  Network  -  Legal  Framework  and  Administrative  Practices  in 
Selected  Member  States’,  Journal  for  European  Environmental  and  Planning  Law 
5(1): 35-68. 

Van  Apeldoorn,  R.C.;  Kruk,  R.W.;  Bouwma,  I.M.;  Ferranti,  F.;  De  Blust,  G.  and 
Sier,  A.R.J.  (2009).  ‘Information  and  communication  on  the  designation  and 
management of Natura2000 sites. The designation in 27 EU Member States’. Main 
report 1. (Alterra). 

Wandesforde-Smith,  G.  and  Watts,  N.S.J.  (2014).  ‘Wildlife  Conservation  and 
Protected Areas: Politics, Procedure and the Performance of Failure under the EU 
Birds  and  Habitats  Directives’,  Journal  of  International  Wildlife  Law  &  Policy 
17(1). 

WWF  (2012).  ‘La  Red  Natura  2000  en  España:  Situación  por  comunidades 
autónomas’. Luis Suárez (Ed,). WWF España, Madrid. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 1 

Table 1: SAC designation deadlines by region 

Macaronesian  Alpine 

Atlantic 
and 
Continental 

Boreal  Mediterranean  Pannonian 

December 
2007 

December 
2009 

December 
2010 

January 
2011 

July 2012 

November 
2013 

Steppic 
and 
Black 
Sea 
December 
2014 

Figure  1:  State  of  progress  by  Member  States  in  designating  sufficient  protected 
areas (source European Environment Agency, 2013) 

Flexibility within the relevant Articles 

Table 2: Articles of the Habitats and Birds Directives linked to designations 

Article 

Habitats 
Directive 
article 1(h) 

Content 

importance  designated  by 

special  area  of  conservation  means  a  site  of 
Community 
the 
Member States through a statutory, administrative 
the  necessary 
and/or  contractual  act  where 
conservation  measures  are  applied 
the 
for 
maintenance  or  restoration,  at  a  favourable 

Flexibility in the 
Article 
Member  States  can  decide 
if  the  designation  is  done 
statutory, 
through 
and/or 
administrative 
contractual act.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 

Content 

Flexibility in the 
Article 

Habitats 
Directive 
article 3(1) 

Habitats 
Directive 
article 3(2) 

Habitats 
Directive 
article 4(1) 

conservation  status,  of  the  natural  habitats  and/or 
the populations of the species for which the site is 
designated; 
A  coherent  European  ecological  network  of 
special areas of conservation shall be set up under 
the title Natura 2000. This network, composed of 
sites  hosting  the  natural  habitat  types  listed  in 
Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex 
II,  shall  enable  the  natural  habitat  types  and  the 
species'  habitats  concerned  to  be  maintained  or, 
where  appropriate,  restored  at  a  favourable 
conservation  status  in  their  natural  range.  The 
Natura  2000  network  shall  include  the  special 
protection  areas  classified  by  the  Member  States 
pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC. 

Each Member State shall contribute to the creation 
of Natura 2000 in proportion to the representation 
within its territory of the natural habitat types and 
the  habitats  of  species  referred  to  in  paragraph 1. 
To that effect each Member State shall designate, 
in accordance with Article 4, sites as special areas 
of  conservation  taking  account  of  the  objectives 
set out in paragraph 1. 
On  the  basis  of  the  criteria  set  out  in  Annex  III 
(Stage 1) and relevant scientific information, each 
Member  State  shall  propose  a  list  of  sites 
indicating  which  natural  habitat  types  in  Annex  I 
and which species in Annex II that are native to its 
territory the sites host. For animal species ranging 
over wide areas these sites shall correspond to the 
places  within  the  natural  range  of  such  species 
which  present  the  physical  or  biological  factors 
essential to their life and reproduction. For aquatic 
species  which  range  over  wide  areas,  such  sites 
will  be  proposed  only  where  there  is  a  clearly 
identifiable  area  representing  the  physical  and 
biological  factors  essential  to  their  life  and 
reproduction.  Where  appropriate,  Member  States 
shall  propose  adaptation  of  the  list  in  the  light  of 
the results of the surveillance referred to in Article 
the 
11.  The 

list  shall  be 

transmitted 

to 

50 

Annex  1  lists  the  natural 
habitat types that require to 
be  designated  as  a  SAC. 
level  of 
a 
There 
is 
how 
in 
flexibility 
to 
different 
the 
interpret 
such  as 
habitat 
types, 
“Sandbanks  which 
are 
slightly  covered  by  sea 
time”. 
water 
is 
However,  Annex  1 
supported 
the 
“Interpretation 
Manual of European Union 
Habitats”.  
Some  flexibility  in  terms 
of Article 3(1) and 4(1)  

the 

all 

by 

Annex  III  sets  criteria  for 
selecting  sites  eligible  for 
identification 
as  sites  of  community 
and 
importance 
designation as 
SACs and provides a level 
of  flexibility  in  proposing 
Annex  I  and  Annex  II 
include  for 
sites.  These 
Annex 
by 
(italics 
authors):  (a)  Degree  of 
representativity 
the 
natural  habitat  type  on  the 
site.  
(c) Degree of conservation 
of 
and 
functions  of  the  natural 

structure 

the 

of 

I 

 
Article 

Content 

Commission, within three years of the notification 
of  this  Directive,  together  with  information  on 
each site. That information shall include a map of 
the  site,  its  name,  location,  extent  and  the  data 
resulting from application of the criteria specified 
in  Annex  III  (Stage  1)  provided  in  a  format 
established by the Commission in accordance with 
the procedure laid down in Article 21. 

Habitats 
Directive 
article 4(2) 

On  the  basis  of  the  criteria  set  out  in  Annex  III 
(Stage 2) and in the framework both of each of the 
nine biogeographical regions referred to in Article 
1 (c) (iii) and of the whole of the territory referred 
to in Article 2 (1), the Commission shall establish, 
in agreement with each Member State, a draft list 
of sites of Community importance drawn from the 
Member  States'  lists  identifying  those  which  host 
one  or  more  priority  natural  habitat  types  or 
priority  species.  Member  States  whose  sites 
hosting  one or  more  priority  natural  habitat  types 
and  priority  species  represent  more  than  5  %  of 
their national territory may, in agreement with the 
Commission,  request  that  the  criteria  listed  in 
Annex  III  (Stage  2)  be  applied  more  flexibly  in 
selecting all the sites of Community importance in 
their territory. The list of sites selected as sites of 
Community  importance,  identifying  those  which 
host  one  or  more  priority  natural  habitat  types  or 
priority  species,  shall  be  adopted  by 
the 
Commission in accordance with the procedure laid 

51 

features  of 
which 

Flexibility in the 
Article 
habitat type concerned and 
restoration possibilities. 
(d)  Global  assessment  of 
the  value  of  the  site  for 
conservation of the natural 
habitat type concerned. 
These  include  for  Annex 
II:  
(b)Degree  of  conservation 
the 
the 
of 
habitat 
are 
important  for  the  species 
concerned  and  restoration 
possibilities. 
(c)  Degree  of  isolation  of 
the  population  present  on 
the  site  in  relation  to  the 
natural 
the 
range 
species. 
(d)  Global  assessment  of 
the  value  of  the  site  for 
conservation of the species 
concerned. 
In Annex III (Stage 2), the 
Commission assessment of 
the 
Community 
importance  of  other  sites 
on  Member  States'  lists 
(not  selected  as  part  of 
Stage  1)  will  be  based  on 
the following criteria:  
a) Relative value of the site 
at national level 
b)  global  ecological  value 
the 
site 
the 
of 
biogeographical 
regions 
concerned  and/or  for  the 
territory 
whole  of 
referred to in Article 2. 

the 

for 

of 

The  Commission  may  be 
requested  by  a  Member 
State  to  apply  the  criteria 
for  Annex  III  (Stage  2) 

 
 
 
for 

the 

Flexibility in the 
Article 
more  flexibly  in  selecting 
the 
sites 
all 
Member  State  in  question 
that  are  hosting  one  or 
more 
natural 
priority 
habitat  types  and  priority 
species,  representing  more 
than  5  %  of  their  national 
territory. 
Some  flexibility  (or  rather 
uncertainty) in determining 
what 
and 
reliable  information  for  an 
exceptional case.  

relevant 

is 

No flexibility 

Flexibility 
in  determine 
what  are  the  most  suitable 
territories  

Article 

Content 

down in Article 21. 

Habitats 
article 5(1) 

Habitats 
Directive 
article 5(2) 

Birds 
Directive 
article  4(1) 
(last para) 

Article  5(1):  In  exceptional  cases  where  the 
Commission finds that a national list as referred to 
in  Article  4  (1)  fails  to  mention  a  site  hosting  a 
priority  natural  habitat  type  or  priority  species 
which,  on  the  basis  of  relevant  and  reliable 
scientific  information,  it  considers  to  be  essential 
for the maintenance of that priority natural habitat 
type  or  for  the  survival  of  that  priority  species,  a 
bilateral  consultation  procedure  shall  be  initiated 
between  that  Member  State  and  the  Commission 
for  the  purpose  of  comparing  the  scientific  data 
used by each.  
If,  on  expiry  of  a  consultation  period  not 
exceeding  six  months, 
remains 
unresolved,  the  Commission  shall  forward  to  the 
Council a proposal relating to the selection of the 
site as a site of Community importance. 
Member States shall classify in particular the most 
suitable  territories  in  number  and  size  as  special 
protection  areas  for  the  conservation  of  these 
species  in  the  geographical  sea  and  land  area 
where this Directive applies. 

the  dispute 

52 

 
 
 
Implementation Actions Brought by the Commission  

Table 3: Number of petitions received by the Commission (nature protection cases) (European 
Commission, 2011 (g) and European Commission, 2010 (h)). 

DATE 

2010 

2009 

PETITIONS 

RECEIVED 

32 

50 

HIGHEST PROPORTION FROM 

COUNTRIES 

Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, 

Germany, Greece, Hungary, 
Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, 
Slovakia and Spain 

Bulgaria, France, Malta and Spain 

Table 4: Number of Commission open cases (nature protection cases) (European Commission, 
2009 (i); European Commission, 2008 (j); European Commission, 2006 (1); European 
Commission, 2004 (s)) 

DATE 
2008 
2007 
2005 
2003 

CASES OPEN 
168 
235 
179 
589 

Determining which Countries Were Experiencing Implementation Difficulties. 

We  wanted  to  determine  which  countries  and  regions  appeared  to  be  experiencing  the  most 
implementation difficulties in relation to the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. Using the 
annual  reports  on  Monitoring  the  Application  of  EU  Law  (2005-2013)  we  examined  which 
countries/regions look to have experienced implementation or conformity difficulties and when. 
The figures presented below should not be considered as scientific proof (e.g. they might cover 
the  same  infringement  twice  as  the  Commissions  progresses  with  a  case  over  years)  and  the 
methodology  for  presenting  information  in  the  reports  changed  over  time.  It  is  also  not  our 
intention to present them as a league table. The key purpose for constructing them was to see if 
the  number  of  times  they  had  been  mentioned  in  the  annual  reports  in  respect  to  Commission 
enforcement  action  might  help  build  a  picture  as  to  national  and  regional  implementation 
difficulties.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  5:  Member  States  Non-conformity  with  the  Habitats  Directive  (Mentions  in  the  Annual 
Reports on Monitoring the Application of EU Law (2005-2013) 

DATE 

COUNTRY 

2013 
2013 
2013 
2012 
2012 

2012 
2012 
2012 

2011 
2011 

Austria 
Denmark 
Germany 
Cyprus 
Cyprus 

France 
Greece 
Lithuania 

Denmark 
Poland 

2011 

Spain 

2010 
2010 

Denmark 
Germany 

2010 

Italy 

2010 

Italy 

2010 

Italy 

2010 
2010 

Poland 
Spain 

2009 
2009 

2009 

Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 
Finland 

LETTER OF 
FORMAL 
NOTICE OR 
WARNING 
LETTER 

REASONED 
OPINION 

COURT 
PROCEEDINGS 
BEGAN / 
INTERIM 
MEASURES 

JUDGMENT OF 
THE COURT 

ACTION 
DROPPED 

X 

X 
IP/07/938 
X 

X 
Case C-340/10 
(art 258) 

X 

X 
Case -46/11 
X 
Cases 
404/09 and C-

90/10 

X 
Case C-226/08 
X 
Case c-491/08 
X 
Case 164/09 
X 
537/08 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
Case C-
308/08 

X 
Case-
362/06 
Sahlstedt 

X 

X 

X 
X 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DATE 

COUNTRY 

2009 

Greece 

2009 
2009 
2009 

2009 
2009 
2008 
2008 

2008 
2008 
2008 

Lithuania 
Latvia 
Poland 

Romania 
Slovakia 
Bulgaria 
Czech 
Republic 
Estonia 
France 
Greece 

2008 

Ireland 

2008 
2008 
2008 
2008 
2008 
2008 
2008 
2008 
2008 
2008 

Portugal 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Slovakia 
Hungary 
Romania 
Romania 
Spain 
Spain 

2008 

Spain 

2007 

Austria 

2007 

Finland 

LETTER OF 
FORMAL 
NOTICE OR 
WARNING 
LETTER 

REASONED 
OPINION 

COURT 
PROCEEDINGS 
BEGAN / 
INTERIM 
MEASURES 

JUDGMENT OF 
THE COURT 

ACTION 
DROPPED 

X 
X (2nd) 

X (2nd) 

X 
Case C-
334/04 
(art 228) 
X 
Case C-
183/05 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X (2nd) 

X 
Case C-
235/04 
(art 228) 

X 
Case C-293/07 

X 
Case C-193/07 

X 
Case C-308/08 
X 
Case C-508/04 
X 
Case c-342/05 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DATE 

COUNTRY 

2007 

Greece 

2007 

Italy 

2007 

Italy 

2007 

Italy 

2007 

Italy 

2007 

Poland 

2006 

Austria 

2006 
2006 

2006 
2006 
2006 
2006 
2006 
2006 
2006 

2006 
2006 
2005 
2005 
2005 
2005 
2005 
2005 

2005 
2005 

Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 
Denmark 
France 
Greece 
Malta 
Poland 
Portugal 
Portugal 

Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Belgium 
Belgium 
France 
Greece 
Ireland 
Italy 

Italy 
Italy 

LETTER OF 
FORMAL 
NOTICE OR 
WARNING 
LETTER 

REASONED 
OPINION 

COURT 
PROCEEDINGS 
BEGAN / 
INTERIM 
MEASURES 

JUDGMENT OF 
THE COURT 

ACTION 
DROPPED 

X 
(Case C-

103/00) 
X 
Case C-
518/04 

X 
Case C-388/05 
X 
Case C-304/05 
X 
Case C-179/06 

X 
Case C-
193/07 
(also Birds) 

X 

X 

X 
Case C-239/04 

X 

X 
Case C-117/03 

X 
(final 
warning) 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LETTER OF 
FORMAL 
NOTICE OR 
WARNING 
LETTER 

REASONED 
OPINION 

COURT 
PROCEEDINGS 
BEGAN / 
INTERIM 
MEASURES 
X 

JUDGMENT OF 
THE COURT 

ACTION 
DROPPED 

X 
Case C-
71/99 

X 

X 
(Art 228, C-
441/03).) 
X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
(final 
warning) 

DATE 

COUNTRY 

2005 
2005 

Italy 
Germany 

2005  Netherlands 

2005  Netherlands 
2005 
2005 
2005 
2005 

Portugal 
Portugal 
Spain 
United 
Kingdom 
United 
Kingdom 

2006 

2005 

2005 

United 
Kingdom 
United 
Kingdom 

X 
Case C-6/04 
X 
Case C-131/05 

Table  6:  Summary of  Member States  Non-conformity with the Habitats  Directive (Mentions in 
the Annual Reports on Monitoring the Application of EU Law (2005-2013) 

COUNTRY 

Austria (1995) 
Belgium (1952) 
Bulgaria (2007) 
Croatia (2013) 
Cyprus (2004) 
Czech Republic (2004) 
Denmark (1973) 
Estonia (2004) 
Finland (1995) 
France (1952) 
Germany (1952) 
Greece (1981) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

2005 – 2013 
3 
2 
1 
0 
4 
3 
4 
1 
2 
4 
3 
6 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hungary (2004) 
Ireland (1973) 
Italy (1952) 
Latvia (2004) 
Lithuania (2004) 
Luxembourg (1952) 
Malta (2004) 
Netherlands (1952) 
Poland (2004) 
Portugal (1986) 
Romania (2007) 
Slovakia (2004) 
Slovenia (2004) 
Spain (1986) 
Sweden (1995) 
United Kingdom (1973) 

Total 

1 
2 
11 
2 
3 
0 
1 
2 
6 
5 
3 
3 
1 
7 
0 
4 

84 

Table 7: Member States Non-conformity with the Birds Directive (Mentions in the Annual 
Reports on Monitoring the Application of EU Law (2005-2013) 

DATE 

COUNTRY 

2013 

Bulgaria 

2013 

Cyprus 

2013 

Latvia 

2013 
2012 
2012 
2012 
2012 

2012 
2011 
2011 

2011 

Malta 
Latvia 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Poland 

Portugal 
Austria 
Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

LETTER OF 
FORMAL 
NOTICE OR 
WARNING 
LETTER 

REASONED 
OPINION 

COURT 
PROCEEDINGS 
BEGAN / 
INTERIM 
MEASURES 
X IP/13/966 

X 
MEMO/13/122 

X 

X 
X 

X 
(IP/09/1793) 

JUDGMENT 
OF THE 
COURT 

ACTION 
DROPPED 

X C-192/11 
& C-46/11 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LETTER OF 
FORMAL 
NOTICE OR 
WARNING 
LETTER 

REASONED 
OPINION 

COURT 
PROCEEDINGS 
BEGAN / 
INTERIM 
MEASURES 

JUDGMENT 
OF THE 
COURT 

DATE 

COUNTRY 

2011 
2011 

Denmark 
Hungary 

2011 

Italy 

2011 

Latvia 

2011 

Malta 

2011 

Poland 

2011 

Poland 

2010 

Austria 

2010 
2010 
2010 

Belgium 
Greece 
Italy 

X 

2010 

Italy 

2010 

Malta 

2010 
2010 
2010 

2009 
2009 
2009 

Poland 
Romania 
United 
Kingdom 
Slovakia 
Denmark 
Greece 

2009 

Italy 

2009 

Malta 

X 
(Art 260) 

X 

X 
Case C-

259/08 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

59 

ACTION 
DROPPED 

X 
X 
(IP/11/43) 

X 

X 
(IP/07/938) 
X 
(IP/10/1409) 
X 
(IP/11/71) 

X 
Case C-
508/09 

X 
Case C-
192/11 
X 
Case C-535-
07 

X 
Case C-
573/08 
Case C-
164/09 

X 
Case C-
508/09 
X 
Case C-76/08 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DATE 

COUNTRY 

2008 

Austria 

2008 

2008 

Czech 
Republic 
Greece 

2008 
2008 

Hungary 
Italy 

2008 

Italy 

2008 
2008 
2008 
2008 
2008 

Latvia 
Lithuania 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Spain 

2007 

Austria 

2007 
2007 
2007 
2007 

2007 
2007 
2007 

Austria 
Cyprus 
Cyprus 
Czech 
 Republic 
Finland 
Germany 
Greece 

2007 
2007 

Hungary 
Ireland 

2007 
2007 
2007 

Latvia 
Lithuania 
Malta 

REASONED 
OPINION 

COURT 
PROCEEDINGS 
BEGAN / 
INTERIM 
MEASURES 

JUDGMENT 
OF THE 
COURT 

ACTION 
DROPPED 

LETTER OF 
FORMAL 
NOTICE OR 
WARNING 
LETTER 
X 
Case C-

507/04 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
Case C-

293/07 

X 
Case 573/08 
X 
C-503/06 

X 
Case C-
507/04 

X 
Case C-
334/04 

X 
Case C-
418/04 

X 
T-322/06, 
323/06, 
345/06, 
366/06 

X 

X 

X 

X 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DATE 

COUNTRY 

2007 
2007 
2007 

2007 
2007 
2007 

2006 
2006 
2006 

2006 
2006 
2006 

Malta 
Poland 
Poland 

Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Spain 

Austria 
Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 

2006 

Finland 

2006 
2006 
2006 

2006 
2006 
2006 
2006 

2006 
2006 
2006 

2006 
2006 

France 
France 
Germany 

Greece 
Hungary 
Italy 
Italy 

Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxem-
bourg 
(2nd 
warning 
letter) 
Malta 
Malta 

LETTER OF 
FORMAL 
NOTICE OR 
WARNING 
LETTER 
X (2nd) 

REASONED 
OPINION 

COURT 
PROCEEDINGS 
BEGAN / 
INTERIM 
MEASURES 

X 
X 
Case C-193/07 
(also Habitats) 

JUDGMENT 
OF THE 
COURT 

ACTION 
DROPPED 

X 
Case C-
235/04 

X 
Case C-
503/06 

X 
X 
X 
(Art 228) 

X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
(Art 288 – 
C-240/00) 
X 
(Art 288 – 
C-344/03) 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LETTER OF 
FORMAL 
NOTICE OR 
WARNING 
LETTER 
X 
X 
X 
(final 
warning) 
X 
X 
X 

X 
2nd 
X 
(Art 288 – 
C-79/03) 
X 

X 

X 
(Art 228, C-
441/03) 

DATE 

COUNTRY 

2006  Netherlands 
2006 
2006 

Poland 
Poland 

2006 
2006 
2006 

Poland 
Slovakia 
Spain 

2006 

Spain 

2006 

Spain 

2006 

2005 

2005 
2005 

2005 
2005 

United 
Kingdom 
Finland 

France 
Greece 

Greece 
Nether-
lands 

2005 

Spain 

2005 

Spain 

2005 

United 
Kingdom 

REASONED 
OPINION 

COURT 
PROCEEDINGS 
BEGAN / 
INTERIM 
MEASURES 

JUDGMENT 
OF THE 
COURT 

ACTION 
DROPPED 

X 
Case C-
344/03 

X 
Casec-166/04 

X 
Case C-
135/04 
X 

X 
Case C-
131/05) 

X 

X 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8: Summary of Member States Non-conformity with the Birds Directive (Mentions in the 
Annual Reports on Monitoring the Application of EU Law (2005-2013)  

COUNTRY 

Austria (1995) 
Belgium (1952) 
Bulgaria (2007) 
Croatia (2013) 
Cyprus (2004) 
Czech Republic (2004) 
Denmark (1973) 
Estonia (2004) 
Finland (1995) 
France (1952) 
Germany (1952) 
Greece (1981) 
Hungary (2004) 
Ireland (1973) 
Italy (1952) 
Latvia (2004) 
Lithuania (2004) 
Luxembourg (1952) 
Malta (2004) 
Netherlands (1952) 
Poland (2004) 
Portugal (1986) 
Romania (2007) 
Slovakia (2004) 
Slovenia (2004) 
Spain (1986) 
Sweden (1995) 
United Kingdom (1973) 

Total 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

2005 – 2013 
6 
1 
1 
0 
5 
4 
3 
1 
4 
3 
2 
7 
4 
1 
8 
7 
4 
1 
8 
2 
9 
1 
2 
4 
1 
7 
0 
3 

99 

Analysis of Implementation of Natura 2000 Sites according to Biogeographical Regions 

The  nine  biogeographical  regions  referred  to  in  Article  1(c)(iii)  of  Directive  92/43/EEC  are 
Atlantic,  Continental,  Mediterranean,  Alpine.  Boreal,  Macaronesian,  Black  Sea,  Pannonian  and 
Steppic.11  A  number  of  implementing  decisions  adopting  updates  to  the  list  of  sites  of 

11 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/sites_hab/biogeog_regions/index_en.htm#boreal 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Community importance for each of these regions is available online. These documents inform as 
to which individual Member States countries fall within each  region. Some Member States can 
fall within multiple regions.  

In this section, we examined implementation specifically from a regional perspective, by looking 
at  the  cumulative  totals  of  the  number  of  times  each  Member  State  from  each  region  has  been 
mentioned in the Annual Monitoring Reports of the European Commission. We did not have the 
%  breakdown,  as  to  the  numbers  and  size  of  areas,  in  each  Member  State,  in  respect  to  which 
region they were in. Instead, to simplify things, we have just given each Member State the full 
number  of  their  score  each  time  for  each  individual  region.  Again,  this  is  not  meant  to  be  a 
scientific method (possibly a more detailed study might be commissioned in the future), but just 
as a basic indicator as to whether certain problems might be regionally focused.  

1. Atlantic Region 

The Atlantic biogeographical region comprises the Union territories of Ireland, the Netherlands 
and  the  United  Kingdom,  and  parts  of  the  Union  territories  of  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany, 
Spain, France and Portugal as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 
by the Habitats Committee set up by Article 20 of the Habitats Directive. 

Table 9: Implementation of the Habitats Directive in the Atlantic Region 

COUNTRY (IN ATLANTIC REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

Belgium (1952) 
Denmark (1973) 
France (1952) 
Germany (1952) 
Ireland (1973) 
Netherlands (1952) 
Portugal (1986) 
Spain (1986) 
United Kingdom (1973) 

2005 – 2013 
2 
4 
4 
3 
2 
2 
5 
7 
4 

Number of countries = 9 

Total Score = 33 

Average Score (33 divided by 9) = 3.7 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10: Implementation of the Birds Directive in the Atlantic Region 

COUNTRY (IN ATLANTIC 

REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

Belgium (1952) 
Denmark (1973) 
France (1952) 
Germany (1952) 
Ireland (1973) 
Netherlands (1952) 
Portugal (1986) 
Spain (1986) 
United Kingdom (1973) 

2005 – 2013 
1 
3 
3 
2 
1 
2 
1 
7 
3 

Number of countries = 9 

Total Score = 23 

Average Score (23 divided by 9) = 2.6 

2. Continental Region 

The Continental biogeographical region comprises the Union territory of Luxembourg and parts 
of the Union territories of Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, France, 
Italy,  Austria,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Croatia  and  Sweden,  as  specified 
the 
biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Habitats committee set up by Article 20 
of the Habitats Directive. 

in 

Table 11: Implementation of the Habitats Directive in the Continental Region 

COUNTRY (IN CONTINENTAL 

REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

Austria (1995) 
Belgium (1952) 
Czech Republic (2004) 
Denmark (1973) 
Germany (1952) 
France (1952) 
Italy (1952) 
Poland (2004) 

2005 – 2013 
3 
2 
3 
4 
3 
4 
11 
6 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Romania (2007) 
Slovenia (2004) 
Sweden (1995) 

3 
1 
0 

Number of countries = 

Total Score = 40 

Average Score (40 divided by 11) = 3.6 

Table 12: Implementation of the Birds Directive in the Continental Region 

COUNTRY (IN CONTINENTAL 

REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

Austria (1995) 
Belgium (1952) 
Czech Republic (2004) 
Denmark (1973) 
Germany (1952) 
France (1952) 
Italy (1952) 
Poland (2004) 
Romania (2007) 
Slovenia (2004) 
Sweden (1995) 

2005 – 2013 
6 
1 
4 
3 
2 
3 
8 
9 
2 
1 
0 

Number of countries = 11 

Total Score = 39 

Average Score (39 divided by 11) = 3.5 

3. Mediterranean Region 

The Mediterranean biogeographical region comprises the Union territories of Greece, Cyprus and 
Malta, parts of the Union territories of Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and Croatia (who we left out 
of  this analysis  because  of  their recent  accession),  and,  the territory  of Gibraltar,  for  which  the 
United  Kingdom  is  responsible  for  external  relations,  as  specified  in  the  biogeographical  map 
approved  on  20  April  2005  by  the  Habitats  committee  set  up  by  Article  20  of  the  Habitats 
Directive. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 13: Implementation of the Habitats Directive in the Mediterranean Region  

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

Cyprus (2004) 
France (1952) 
Greece (1981) 
Italy (1952) 
Malta (2004) 
Portugal (1986) 
Spain (1986) 
United Kingdom [Gibraltar] (1973) 

2005 – 2013 
4 
4 
6 
11 
1 
5 
7 
4 

Number of countries = 8 

Total Score = 42 

Average Score (42 divided by 8) = 5.3 

Table 14: Implementation of the Birds Directive in the Mediterranean Region 

COUNTRY (IN MEDITERRANEAN 

REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

2005 – 2013 

Cyprus (2004) 
France (1952) 
Greece (1981) 
Italy (1952) 
Malta (2004) 
Portugal (1986) 
Spain (1986) 
United Kingdom [Gibraltar] (1973) 

5 
3 
7 
8 
8 
1 
7 
3 

Number of countries = 8 

Total Score = 42 

Average Score (42 divided by 8) = 5.3 

67 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Alpine Region 

The Alpine biogeographical region comprises the Union territories of the Alps (Germany, France 
Italy,  Austria  and  Slovenia),  the  Pyrenees  (Spain  and  France),  the  Apennine  mountains  (Italy), 
the northern Fennoscandian mountains (Finland and Sweden), the Carpathian mountains (Poland, 
Romania  and  Slovakia),  the  Dinaric  Mountains  (Slovenia  and  Croatia)  and  the  Balkan,  Rila, 
Pirin,  Rhodope  and  the  Sashtinska  Sredna  Gora  Mountains  (Bulgaria),  as  specified  in  the 
biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Habitats Committee set up by Article 20 
of that Directive. 

Table 15: Implementation of the Habitats Directive in the Alpine Region 

COUNTRY (IN ALPINE REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

Austria (1995) 
Bulgaria (2007) 
Finland (1995) 
France (1952) 
Germany (1952) 
Italy (1952) 
Poland (2004) 
Romania (2007) 
Slovakia (2004) 
Slovenia (2004) 
Spain (1986) 
Sweden (1995) 
Number of countries = 12 

2005 – 2013 
3 
1 
2 
4 
3 
11 
6 
3 
3 
1 
7 
0 
Total Score = 48 
Average Score (48 divided by 12) = 4 

Table 16: Implementation of the Birds Directive in the Alpine Region 

COUNTRY (IN ALPINE REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

Austria (1995) 
Bulgaria (2007) 
Finland (1995) 
France (1952) 
Germany (1952) 
Italy (1952) 

2005 – 2013 
6 
1 
4 
3 
2 
8 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Poland (2004) 
Romania (2007) 
Slovakia (2004) 
Slovenia (2004) 
Spain (1986) 
Sweden (1995) 

9 
2 
4 
1 
7 
0 

Number of countries = 12 

Total Score = 47 

Average Score (divided by 12) = 3.9 

5. Boreal Region 

The Boreal biogeographical region comprises parts of the Union territories of Finland and 
Sweden and the Union territories of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as specified in the 
biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Habitats Committee set up by Article 20 
of the Habitats Directive. 

Table 17: Implementation of the Habitats Directive in the Boreal Region 

COUNTRY (IN BOREAL REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

Estonia (2004) 
Finland (1995) 
Latvia (2004) 
Lithuania (2004) 
Sweden (1995) 

2005 – 2013 
1 
2 
2 
3 
0 

Number of countries = 5 

Total Score = 8 

Average Score (8 divided by 5) = 1.6 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 18: Implementation of the Birds Directive in the Boreal Region 

COUNTRY (IN BOREAL REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

Estonia (2004) 
Finland (1995) 
Latvia (2004) 
Lithuania (2004) 
Sweden (1995) 

2005 – 2013 
1 
4 
7 
4 
0 

Number of countries = 5 

Total Score = 16 

Average Score (16 divided by 5) = 3.2 

6. Macaronesian Region 

The Macaronesian biogeographical region comprises the archipelagos of the Azores and Madeira 
(Portugal)  and  the  Canary  Islands  (Spain)  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  as  specified  in  the 
biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Habitats Committee set up by Article 20 
of the Habitats Directive. 

Table 19: Implementation of the Habitats Directive in the Macaronesian Region 

COUNTRY (IN MACARONESIAN 

REGION) 

Portugal (1986) 
Spain (1986) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

2005 – 2013 
5 
7 

Number of countries = 2 

Total Score = 12 

Average Score (12 divided by 2) = 6 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 20: Implementation of the Birds Directive in the Macaronesian Region 

COUNTRY (IN MACARONESIAN 

REGION) 

Portugal (1986) 
Spain (1986) 

Number of countries = 2 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

2005 – 2013 
1 
7 
Total Score = 8 

Average Score (8 divided by 2) = 4 

7. Black Sea Region 

The  Black  Sea  biogeographical  region  comprises  parts  of  the  Union  territories  of  Bulgaria  and 
Romania,  as  specified  in  the  biogeographical  map  approved  on  20  April  2005  by  the  Habitats 
Committee set up by Article 20 of the Habitats Directive. 

Table 21: Implementation of the Habitats Directive in the Black Sea Region 

COUNTRY (IN BLACK SEA 

REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

Bulgaria (2007) 
Romania (2007) 

Number of countries = 2 

2005 – 2013 
1 
3 
Total Score = 4 

Average Score (4 divided by 2) = 2 

Table 22: Implementation of the Birds Directive in the Black Sea Region 

COUNTRY (IN BLACK SEA 

REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

Bulgaria (2007) 
Romania (2007) 

Number of countries = 2 

2005 – 2013 
1 
2 
Total Score = 3 

Average Score (3 divided by 2 ) = 1.5 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. Pannonian Region 

The  Pannonian  biogeographical  region  comprises  parts  of  the  Union  territories  of  the  Czech 
Republic,  Romania  and  Slovakia  and  the  Union  territory  of  Hungary,  as  specified  in  the 
biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Habitats Committee set up by Article 20 
of the Habitats Directive. 

Table 23: Implementation of the Birds Directive in the Pannonian Region 

COUNTRY (IN PANNONIAN 

REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

Czech Republic (2004) 
Romania (2007) 
Slovakia (2004) 

Number of countries = 3 

2005 – 2013 
3 
3 
3 
Total Score = 9 

Average Score (9 divided by 3) = 3 

Table 24: Implementation of the Birds Directive in the Pannonian Region 

COUNTRY (IN PANNONIAN 

REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

Czech Republic (2004) 
Romania (2007) 
Slovakia (2004) 

Number of countries = 3 

9. Steppic Region 

2005 – 2013 

4 
2 
4 
Total Score = 10 

Average Score (10 divided by 3) = 3.3 

The Steppic biogeographical region referred comprises parts of the Union territory of Romania, 
as specified in the biogeographical map approved on 20 April 2005 by the Habitats Committee 
set up by Article 20 of the Habitats Directive. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 25: Implementation of the Habitats Directive in the Steppic Region 

COUNTRY (IN STEPPIC REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

Romania (2007) 

Number of countries = 1 

2005 – 2013 
3 
Total Score = 3 

Average Score (3 divided by 1) = 3 

Table 26: Implementation of the Birds Directive in the Steppic Region 

COUNTRY (IN STEPPIC REGION) 

NUMBER OF TIMES IN ANNUAL 

MONITORING REPORT IN CONNECTION 
WITH BIRDS DIRECTIVE 

Romania (2007) 

Number of countries = 1 

2005 – 2013 
2 
Total Score = 2 

Table 27: Summary Table of Implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives in the Nine 
Regions 

Average Score (2 divided by 1) = 2 

AVERAGE 
NUMBER OF 
TIMES EACH 
COUNTRY IN 
ANNUAL 
MONITORIN
G REPORT IN 
CONNECTIO
N WITH 
BIRDS 
DIRECTIVE 
2005 – 2013 
3.9 
2.6 
1.5 
3.2 
3.5 
4 
5.3 
3.3 
2 

TOTAL AVERAGE 
NUMBER OF TIMES 
EACH COUNTRY IN 
ANNUAL 
MONITORING 
(HABITATS AND 
BIRDS 
DIRECTIVES) 
2005 – 2013 

7.9 
6.3 
3.5 
4.8 
7.1 
10 
10.6 
6.3 
5 

REGION 

Alpine 
Atlantic 
Black Sea 
Boreal 
Continental 
Macaronesian 
Mediterranean 
Pannonian 
Steppic 

AVERAGE NUMBER OF 

TIMES EACH 
COUNTRY IN ANNUAL 
MONITORING REPORT 
IN CONNECTION WITH 
HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

2005 – 2013 

4 
3.7 
2 
1.6 
3.6 
6 
5.3 
3 
3 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2: Largest % Sites in Regions 

Table 28: Correlation between Size of Sites and Implementation Difficulties 

RANKING 1-

9 

BIGGEST % 
IN SIZE 
(1 = 

BIGGEST) 

RANKING 1-9 
MOST 
IMPLEMENTATI
ON 
DIFFICULTIES - 
HABITATS 

(1= MOST TIMES) 

RANKING 1-9 
MOST 

IMPLEMENTATION 
DIFFICULTIES - 
BIRDS 

(1= MOST TIMES) 

2 
8 
1 
9 
7 
3 
4 
6 
5 

3 
4 
8 
9 
5 
1 
2 
6 
7 

3 
7 
9 
5 
4 
2 
1 
5 
8 

REGION 

Alpine 
Atlantic 
Black Sea 
Boreal 
Continental 
Macaronesia 
Mediterranean 
Pannonian 
Steppic 

Determining  which  Countries  Were  Experiencing  the  Most  Court 
Cases in the European Courts 

We  also  wanted  to  determine  which  countries  appeared  to  be  experiencing  the  most 
implementation  difficulties  in  relation  to  actual  cases  in  European  Courts  under  the  Habitats 
Directive  and  the  Birds  Directive.  Using  the  Westlaw  Legal  Database  we  examined  which 
countries  looked  to  have  experienced  implementation  or  conformity  difficulties  and  why  and 
when. We then recorded the geographical location relating to the facts of the case and researched 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
which biogeographical region it was in. In cases brought against Member States for general non-
transposition  –  where  a  particular  region  was  not  relevant,  we  added  in  every  biogeographical 
region that was applicable to that country. This data is shown in Table 29 below. 

Table 29: Case Law in the European Court of Justice (2004 – 2014). 

Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

Biogeographical 
Region 
Mediterranean 

Peloponnese 
region,  
Greece 

Commission v 
Greece 
Case C-504/14  

11/11/2014 

20/10/2014 

7/10/2014 

Dimos Kropias 
Attikis v Ipourgos 
Perivallontos, 
Energias kai 
Klimatikis 
Allagis (request 
for preliminary 
ruling) 
Case C-473/14 

Commission v 
Kingdom of 
Spain  
Case C-461/14 

Grüne Liga 
Sachsen e. V. and 
Others v Freistaat 
Sachsen (request 
for preliminary 
ruling) 
Case C-399/14 

Commission v 
Greece 
Case C-600/12: 

18/8/2014 

17/7/2014 

Habitats 
Directive 
(failure to stop 
deterioration of 
site) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(protection 
zones and SEA) 

Habitats 
Directive and 
Birds Directive 
(high-speed 
railway line 
between Seville 
and Almería) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(bridge 
authorised 
before 
designation) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(discharge of 
waste in marine 
park) 

75 

Greece 
(not regionally 
specific) 

Mediterranean 

Region of 
Andalusia,  
Spain 

Mediterranean 

Continental 

Russelsheim, 
Rhein-Main 
region, 
Germany 

Zakinthos,  
Greece 

Mediterranean 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

15/5/2014 

Habitats 
Directive 
(compensatory 
measures, A2 
motorway) 

Hertogenbosch 
and Eindhoven, 
Region of North 
Brabant,  
Netherlands 

Biogeographical 
Region 

Atlantic 

T.C. Briels and 
Others v Minister 
van Infra-
structuur en 
Milieu 
Case C-521/12 

European 
Commission v 
Hellenic Republic 
Case C-167/14 

Cascina Tre Pini 
Ss v Ministero 
dell'Ambiente e 
della Tutela del 
Territorio e del 
Mare.  
C-301/12 

European 
Commission v 
Republic of 
Bulgaria 
Case C-141/14 

7/4/2014 

3/4/2014 

24/3/2014 

Sweetman v An 
Bord Pleanala 
C-258/11 

11/4/2013 

Commission v 
Greece 
C-517/11 

7/2/2013 

Greece 

Mediterranean 

Lombardia,  
Italy 

Continental, Alpine 

Kaliakra, 
Southern Dobruja 
region, 
Bulgaria 

Continental, Black 
Sea 

Lough Corrib, 
County Galway, 
Ireland 

Atlantic 

Lake Koroneia, 
Thessaloniki, 
Greece  

Mediterranean 

Habitats 
Directive 
(failure to 
comply with 
judgement 
440/06) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(Review of 
status in the 
event of 
pollution or 
degradation of 
the 
environment) 

Birds Directive 
(failure to 
designate and 
allowing tourist 
projects in these 
conservation 
areas) 

Habitats 
Directive (road 
bypass consent, 
loss of 
limestone 
pavement). 

Habitats 
Directive and 
Birds Directive 
(urban waste 
treatment, 
pollution) 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

Biogeographical 
Region 
Mediterranean 

Zakinthos,  
Greece 

Commission v 
Greece 
C-600/12 

21/12/2012 

United Kingdom 
v Commission  
C-416/11 P  

29/11/2012  

11/09/2012  

12/07/2012  

Nomarchiaki 
Aftodioikisi 
Aitoloakarnanias 
and Others 
C-43/10 

Government of 
Gibraltar v 
Commission  
C-407/11 P  

Syllogos Ellinon 
Poleodomon kai 
Chorotakton 
C-177/11 

Commission v 
Cyprus 
C-340/10  

21/06/2012  

15/03/2012  

Commission v 
Poland  
C-46/11  

15/03/2012  

Habitats 
Directive 
(permitting 
landfill site 
without 
complying with 
assessment 
procedures in 
Directive). 

Habitats 
Directive 
(overlap with 
Spanish 
designation) 

Habitats 
Directive (dam 
construction, 
diversion of 
water) 

Habitats 
(annulment 
sought as 
Spanish 
designation was 
in their 
territorial 
waters) 

Habitats 
Directive (link 
with SEA 
Directive) 

Habitats 
Directive (non 
designation and 
toleration of 
activities in 
SCIs) 
Habitats 
Directive 
(Inadequate 
protection of 
otters) 

77 

Gibraltar, 
United Kingdom 

Mediterranean 

Mediterranean 

Mediterranean  

River Acheloos,  
region of Aetolia-
Acarnania,  
Greece 

Estrecho Oriental, 
Mediterranean, 
Southern Waters 
of Gibraltar,  
United Kingdom 

Greece (not 
regionally 
specific) 

Paralimni Lake, 
Xyliatos Dam, 
region of 
Famagusta, 
Cyprus 

Poland (not 
regionally 
specific) 

Mediterranean 

Mediterranean 

Continental and 
Alpine 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

Biogeographical 
Region 

Continental 

Region of 
Wallonne, 
Belgium.  

Solvay v Regione 
Wallone 
C-182/10 

16/02/2012 

Commssion v 
Poland 
C-192/11 

26/1/2012 

Commission v 
Spain 
C-560/08 

Commission v 
Spain  
C-404/09  

15/12/2011  

24/11/2011  

22/09/2011  

21/7/2011 

Commission v 
Spain  
C-90/10  

Azienda Agro-
Zootecnica 
Franchini Sarl v 
Regione Puglia 
C-2/10 

Commission v 
France  
C-383/09  

09/06/2011  

Habitats 
Directive 
(railways and 
airport projects 
and outweighing 
conversation 
objectives).  

Birds Directive 
(incoorect 
definition of the 
conditions for 
derogating) 

Habitats 
Directive (M501 
road project) 

Habitats 
Directive and 
Birds Directive 
(open cast 
mining projects 
on sites 
approved) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(designation 
sites) 

Birds Directive 
and Habitats 
Directive 
(national 
legislation 
prohibiting wind 
turbines, eia).  

Habitats 
Directive 
(inadequate 
protection of 
European 
hamster) 

78 

Poland (not 
regionally 
specific) 

Continental and 
Alpine 

Mediterranean 

Mediterranean 

Region of 
Community of 
Madrid,  
Spain 
Alto Sil, River 
Sil,  
region of Castilla 
y León,  
Spain 

Canary Islands, 
Spain. 

Macronesia 

Mediterranean  

Alta Murgia 
national park, 
region of Apulia, 
Italy 

Region of Alsace, 
France 

Continental 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

Commission v 
Belgium  
C-538/09  

26/05/2011  

Habitats 
Directive and 
Birds Directive 
(effluent leaking 
from industrial 
cattle shed onto 
site) 

Bassin de Fagnard 
de l’Eau blanche 
en aval de 
Mariembourg, 
Philippeville,  
Walloon region 
Belgium 

Biogeographical 
Region 

Continental 

Bund fur Umwelt 
und Naturschutz 
Deutschland, 
Landesverband 
Nordrhein-
Westfalen eV v 
Bezirksregierung 
Arnsberg 
C-115/09 

Commission v 
Romania 
C-522/09 

Lesoochranarske 
Zoskupenie VLK 
v Ministerstvo 
Zivotneho 
Prostredia 
Slovenskej 
Republiky 
C-240/09 

Commission v 
Italy 

C-508/09  

Commission v 
Italy  
C-164/09  

12/05/2011 

Habitats 
Directive (coal 
fired power 
station within 
8km of five 
SACs. 

North Rhine-
Westphalia, 
Germany 

Atlantic 

14/04/2011  

Birds Directive 
(designation of 
SPAs) 

Romania (not 
regionally 
specific) 

Steppic, Pannonia 
and Black Sea 

08/03/2011  

Habitats 
Directive 
(brown bear 
hunting) 

Slovakia 
(not regionally 
specific) 

Alpine 

03/03/2011   Birds Directive 

(derogations 
introduced that 
incompatible 
with EU law) 

11/11/2010   Birds Directive 

 (derogations 
introduced that 
incompatible 
with EU law) 

Region of 
Sardinia, Italy 

Mediterranean 

Region of Veneto, 
Italy  

Alpine and 
Continental 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

Commission v 
Austria 
C-535/07 

14/10/2010  

Birds Directive 
and Habitats 
Directive (not 
designating) 

Hansag, province 
of Burgenland 
and 
Niedere Tauern, 
province of Styria 
Austria 

Region of 
Wallonia, 
Belgium 

Is Arenas, 
Municipality of 
Narbolia, region 
of Sardinia 

Italy 

Donana National 
Park, region of 
Andalucía, Spain 

17/06/2010  

10/06/2010  

20/05/2010  

Habitats 
Directive (EIAs 
and nitrate 
pollute in 
vulnerable was a 
plan or project) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(tourist complex 
and golf course 
on SCI).  

Habitats 
Directive (road 
upgrade in SCI 
and Iberian 
Lynx.). 

Terre wallonne 
and Inter-
Environnement 
Wallonie  
C-105/09  

Commission v 
Italy 
C-491/08  

European 
Commission v 
Spain 
C-308/08 

Commission v 
France  
C-241/08  

04/03/2010 

Habitats 
Directive 
(transposition) 

France 
(not regionally 
specific) 

Stadt Papenburg v 
Germany 
C-226/08 

14/01/2010  

River Ems,  
Lower Saxony, 
Germany 

Habitats 
Directive 
(dredging at 
seaport and 
municipality’s 
interest for 
national 
conservation 
criteria).  

Biogeographical 
Region 

Alpine 

Continental 

Mediterranean 

Mediterranean 

Atlantic, 
Continental, 
Mediterranean, 
Alpine 

Atlantic 

Commission v 
Malta 
C-76/08 

10/09/2009  

Bird Directive 
(hunting 
periods) 

Malta (not 
regionally 
specific) 

Mediterranean 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

23/04/2009  

Sahlstedt 
and Others v 
Commission  
C-362/06 P 

Finland (not 
regionally 
specific) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(owners 
foresters and 
farmers who 
asked for 
designation to 
be annulled) 

Biogeographical 
Region 
Boreal and Alpine 

15/01/2009  

Birds Directive 
(transposition) 

Greece (not 
regionally 
specific) 

Mediterranean 

Commission v 
Greece 
C-259/08 

Commission v 
Netherlands 
C-249/07  

04/12/2008  

Commission v 
Italy  
C-503/06  

15/05/2008  

Commission v 
Spain 
C-186/06 

18/12/2007  

Commission v 
Ireland 
C-418/04 

13/12/2007  

Habitats 
Directive 
(importation of 
oysters and 
mussels to be 
planed in coastal 
waters) 

Birds Directive 
 (derogations 
introduced that 
incompatible 
with EU law) 

Birds Directive 
(failure to 
protect steppic 
birds and 
designate SPAs) 

Habitats 
Directive, Birds 
Directive 
(classifications) 

Netherlands (not 
regionally 
specific) 

Atlantic 

Region of 
Liguria, Italy 

Mediterranean and 
Alpine 

Segarra-Garrigues 
Canal, Lleida, 
Catalonia, Spain 

Mediterranean and 
Alpine 

Cross Lough, 
County Mayo, 
Ireland 

Atlantic 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

Commission v 
Greece 

25/10/2007  

Birds Directive 
(classifications) 

C-334/04 

Commission v 
Italy 
C-179/06 

04/10/2007  

Commission v 
Italy 
C-388/05 

20/09/2007  

Birds Directive 
and Habitats 
Directive 
(construction 
permits in SPAs 
and SCIs) 
Birds Directive 
(SPAs 
threatened by 
industrial 
projects) 

Greece (not 
regionally 
specific –as 
mentions most 
regions) 

e.g. Pinios Delta, 
Reservoirs of 
former Lake 
Karla, Lake 
Amvrakia, 
Kalogria Lagoon, 
Strofilia Forest, 
Lamia Marshes, 
Lakes Khortaro 
and Alyki, 
Moudros Gulf, 
Diapori Fen, 
Fakos Peninsula, 
Gera Gulf-Dipi 
and Haramida 
Marshes, Lesvos 

Murgia Alta, 
Altamura,  
region of Apulia,  
Italy 

Valloni e Steppe 
Pedegarganiche, 
Gargano National 
Park, 
Manfredonia, 
region of Apulia, 
Italy 

Biogeographical 
Region 
Mediterranean 

Mediterranean 

Mediterranean 

Commission v 
Austria 
C-507/04 

12/07/2007  

Birds Directive 
(provinces had 
not transposed 
articles into 
domestic law) 

Burgenland, 
Upper Austria 
Carinthia, Lower 
Austria and Styria 
regions, Austria 

Continental, Alpine 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

Commission v 
Spain  
C-235/04  

28/06/2007  

Birds Directive 
(non 
classification of 
SPAs) 

Commission v 
Finland  
C-342/05  

Commission v 
Austria  
C-508/04  

14/06/2007  

10/05/2007  

Habitats 
Directive 
(hunting of 
wolves) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(regional 
transposition) 

Spain (not 
regionally 
specific –as 
mentions 11 
regions) 

Finland 
(not regionally 
specific) 

Provinces of 
Styria, Tyrol, 
Carinthia, 
Salzburg and 
Lower Austria. 
Austria. 

Biogeographical 
Region 
Mediterranean, 
Alpine and Atlantic 

Boreal and Alpine 

Alpine and 
Continental 

11/01/2007   Habitats 
Directive 
(derogations). 

Ireland  
(not regionally 
specific) 

Atlantic 

Habitats 
Directive 
(motorway 
through SPA) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(depreciation in 
value of listed 
sites) 

Castro Verde,  
Alentejo region 
Portugal 

Mediterranean 

Marktgemeinde 
Götzendorf an der 
Leitha and 
Gemeinde 
Ebergassing, 
Lower Austria, 
Austria 

Forstinning-
Pastetten, Haag, 
Upper Bavaria, 
Germany 

Alpine and 
Continental 

Continental and 
Alpine 

Commission of 
the European 
Communities v 
Ireland 
C-183/05 

Commission v 
Portugal  
C-239/04  

26/10/2006  

Benkö and Others 
v Commission  
T-122/05  

19/09/2006  

14/09/2006  

Bund Naturschutz 
in Bayern 
and Others  
C-244/05  

Habitats 
Directive 
(motorway 
objection) 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

13/07/2006  

Birds Directive 
(changed 
boundaries of 
SPAs) 

Moura, Mourão e 
Barrancos 
Alentejo región, 
Portugal 

Commission of 
the European 
Communities v 
Portuguese 
Republic 

C-191/05 

Biogeographical 
Region 
Mediterranean 

Mayer and Others 
v Commission  
T-137/04  

22/06/2006  

22/06/2006  

Freiherr von 
Cramer-Klett and 
Rechtlerverband 
Pfronten v 
Commission  
T-136/04  

Habitats 
Directive 
(owners 
foreseters anf 
farmers who 
asked for 
designation to 
be annulled) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(owners 
foresters and 
farmers who 
asked for 
designation to 
be annulled) 

WWF Italia 
and Others 
C-60/05 

08/06/2006  

Birds Directive 
(hunting 
derogations) 

Nockberge 
(Kernzone), 
Kärnten;  
region of 
Carinthia 

Walterskirchen, 
region of Lower 
Austria, 
Austria 

Hochries-
Laubensteingebiet 
und Spitzstein,  
region of Bavaria 

Kienberg mit 
Magerrasen im 
Tal der Steinacher 
Ach 
region of Bavaria, 
Germany 
Lombardy region, 
Italy 

Alpine and 
Continental 

Alpine and 
continental 

Continental, Alpine 

Commission v 
Spain  
C-221/04  

18/05/2006  

Mediterranean 

Habitats 
Directive 
(authorising 
snares which 
killed otters) 

Aldeanueva de la 
Sierra, 
Salamanca, region 
of Castilla y 
León, 
Spain 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

23/03/2006  

Commission of 
the European 
Communities v 
Republic of 
Austria 
C-209/04 

Commission v 
Greece  
C-518/04  

16/03/2006  

10/01/2006  

Commission of 
the European 
Communities v 
Germany 
C-98/03 

Soren and 
Gleggen-Köblern, 
Lauteracher Ried 
National Nature 
Reserve,  
region of 
Vorarlberg, 
Austria 

Island of Milos,  
region of South 
Aegean, 
Greece 

Germany (not 
regionally 
specific –as 
mentions most 
regions) 

Birds Directive 
and Habitats 
Directive 
(motorway and 
non-designation 
of sites) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(failure to 
protect habitats 
used for 
breeding sites 
e.g. viper) 
Habitats 
Directive 
(assessments, 
authorisation of 
emissions, 
derogations, 
pesticides, fisher 
catch 
legislation). 

Biogeographical 
Region 

Alpine 

Mediterranean 

Atlantic, 
Continental, Alpine 

Commission v 
Finland  
C-344/03  

Commission v 
United Kingdom  
C-131/05  

Commission of 
the European 
Communities v 
United Kingdom 
C-6/04 

15/12/2005  

Birds Directive 
(hunting dates) 

Region of Aland, 
Finland 

Boreal 

17/11/2005   Birds Directive 

20/10/2005  

and Habitats 
Directive (non 
transposition) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(assessments, 
obligations to 
protect breeding 
sites and 
derogations).  

United Kingdom 
(not regionally 
specific) 

Atlantic 

Atlantic, 
Mediterranean 

UK 
(not regionally 
specific although 
some failings 
were for Gibraltar 
alone) 

Commission v 
Spain  
C-135/04  

09/06/2005  

Birds Directive 
(hunting 
derogations) 

Guipúzcoa, 
Basque Country, 
Spain 

Mediterranean and 
Atlantic 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 

Date 

Issue 

Location 

Biogeographical 
Region 
Mediterranean, 
Continental and 
Alpine 

Atlantic 

Fossacesia, region 
of Abruzzo , 
Italy 

Netherlands 
(not regionally 
specific). 

Netherlands 
(not regionally 
specific) 

Atlantic 

Port of 
Monfalcone,  
region of Friuli-
Venezia Giulia, 
Italy 

Region of 
Valencia, 
Spain 

Alpine, continental  

Mediterranean 

Atlantic 

Wadden Sea,  
region of Noord 
Holland, 
Netherlands. 

Mediterranean 

Alpine 

Sintra-Cascais 
Natural Park, 
Ponta do Abano 
region of Lisbon, 
Portugal 

Wörschacher 
Moos, Province 
of Styria, 
Austria 

Commission v 
Italy  
C-83/03  

Commission of 
the European 
Communities v 
Netherlands 
C-146/04 

Commission v 
Netherlands 
C-441/03 

Societe Italiana 
Dragaggi SpA v 
Ministero delle 
Infrastrutture e 
dei Trasporti 
C-117/03 

European 
Commission v 
Spain 
C-79/03  

Landelijke 
Vereniging tot 
Behoud van de 
Waddenzee v 
Staatssecretaris 
van Landbouw, 
Natuurbeheer en 
Visserij 
C-127/02 
Commission v 
Portugal  
C-117/02  

02/06/2005  

14/04/2005  

14/04/2005  

13/01/2005  

Habitats 
Directive 
(Marina 
Development) 
Birds Directive 
and Habitats 
Directive 
(transposition 
timings). 

Birds Directive 
and Habitats 
Directive 
(inadequate 
transposition) 
Habitats 
Directive 
(dredging, 
contract before 
classification as 
SCI). A contract  

09/12/2004   Birds Directive 

07/09/2004  

29/04/2004 

(hunting and 
traps) 

Habitats 
Directive 
(whether 
mechanical 
cockle fishing 
was a plan or 
project under 
art.6(3)). 

Habitats 
Directive 
(tourist 
complex) 

Commission v 
Austria  
C-209/02  

29/01/2004  

Habitats 
Directive (golf 
course) 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 30: Highest Numbers of European Court Cases (Habitats and Birds Directive) By Member 
State 2004-2014 

POSITION 

COUNTRY 

HIGHEST NUMBER OF 
EUROPEAN COURT 
CASES 
(HABITATS AND BIRDS 
DIRECTIVE) 
2004-2014 

4 
8 
15 
16 
14 
16 
16 
16 
8 
12 
5 
1 
16 
8 
1 
16 
16 
16 
15 
6 
12 
8 
15 
15 
16 
3 
16 
7 

Austria (1995) 
Belgium (1952) 
Bulgaria (2007) 
Croatia (2013) 
Cyprus (2004) 
Czech Republic (2004) 
Denmark (1973) 
Estonia (2004) 
Finland (1995) 
France (1952) 
Germany (1952) 
Greece (1981) 
Hungary (2004) 
Ireland (1973) 
Italy (1952) 
Latvia (2004) 
Lithuania (2004) 
Luxembourg (1952) 
Malta (2004) 
Netherlands (1952) 
Poland (2004) 
Portugal (1986) 
Romania (2007) 
Slovakia (2004) 
Slovenia (2004) 
Spain (1986) 
Sweden (1995) 
United Kingdom (1973) 

Total 

7 
3 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
3 
2 
6 
11 
0 
3 
11 
0 
0 
0 
1 
5 
2 
3 
1 
1 
0 
10 
0 
4 

75 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  31  below  records  the  biogeographical  regions  with  the  highest  number  of 
court  appearances  between  2004  and  2014,  in  relation  to  the  implementation  and 
application of the Birds and Habitats Directives.  

  Note  1:  in  some  cases  we  identified  a  specific  location  but  this  area 
encompassed one, two or three biogeogrpahical regions. In these circumstances 
all biogeogrpahical regions were recorded in the tables.  

  Note 2: in court cases where no specific location was an issue (and where we 
couldn't  pinpoint  a  specific  biogeogrphical  region),  we  recorded  all  the 
biogeogrphical regions that were applicable to that Member State.  

Table 31: Highest Numbers of European Court Cases (Habitats and Birds Directive) By Region 
2004-2014 

POSITION 

BIOGEOGRAPHICAL 
REGION 

HIGHEST NUMBER OF 
EUROPEAN COURT 
CASES 
(HABITATS AND BIRDS 
DIRECTIVE) 
2004-2014 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
7 
7 

Mediterranean 
Alpine 
Continental 
Atlantic 
Boreal 
Black Sea 
Macronesia 
Pannonian 
Steppic 

Total 

36 
24 
21 
16 
3 
2 
1 
1 
1 

105 

88