Managing Natura 2000 is a challenge. Can LIFE Nature really make a difference?

[LIFE Unit]

The NATURA 2000 network today comprises more than 27 000 sites. For many of these sites, we lack the capacity to effectively manage and protect them (i.e. due to lack of staff, knowledge, equipment, financial resources, political commitment, etc).  Do you believe that LIFE Nature could play a major role to fill this ‘capacity gap’ and ensure the effective and durable management of the network? If so, how could this be accomplished?

[LIFE Unit]

Hi, I have noticed that people are a bit reluctant to post the first comment and so I thought starting the game.
Natura 2000 represents a huge challenge for the EU. With more than 27000 sites covering almost a fifth of the EU territory the network will require a significant investement if we are to manage it in a durable way. The reality on the ground may be very different for each country, for each region or even among sites. It may range from a fully equipped management systems to nothing at all. The reasons for the lack of management may be very different: lack of staff, lack of skills, lack of money, administrative difficulties in accessing resources, competition with other sectors or simply lack of willingness to invest in this area. If we want to support the growth of Natura 2000 we must address this composite picture and invest in increasing the management capacity on the ground in a way that this may be durable in time. We have  done this in many LIFE Nature projects in the past, but the focus of these projects was not explicitely on building management capacity, this was mostly a by-product. Now it may be time to change gear and put this long term target upfront. If we want to make a difference we must ensure that the local players (public authorities, NGOs, etc) are structured to deal with the sites they are responsible for in the long term. Don't you think it's time for LIFE Nature to address this long term objective in a more ambitious way?
Angelo Salsi

[Comunità Ambiente]

The lack of mangement of Natura 2000 is not a problem that can be solved with capacity building.
The main problem is the lack of political will, which is linked to a lack of understanding of the value (also economic) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. LIFE Nature does not seem appropriate to solve this problem.
Comunità Ambiente

[LIFE Unit]

Happy to see that the discussion is taking off. The lack of political commitment is indeed listed as one of the issues to address in supporting the growth of Natura 2000. Yet, once this has been solved, to act you need people, equipment, knowledge and, obviously, money. The way LIFE Nature projects are conceived today is, in most cases, not well adapted to the ambitious goal we set in this question. A more integrated approach based on a solid program might be needed if we want to secure the long term and durable management of the network. Any idea on how could/should LIFE change to better do this?

[zkun1971]

I don't think LIFE+ is an appropriate tool to ensure management of N2000. I believe that 27MSs should guarantee some sort of management (or biodiversity control), which the LIFE+ could be one of the financial mechanism to.
I would prefer the EC providing some additional guideline to a) what is expected from the management and b) how to manage certain habitats (for instance wilderness management versus active habitat management). This requirement goes beyond the goal of LIFE+.

[Silvia Halkova]

I would like to see the LIFE the most important player in NATURA 2000 "capacity building"! That would be the best way towards reaching of the Biodiversity enhancement targets. But this could be done only if the bugdet is at least 5 times higher and acordingly also national indicative allocations. The radical change of EU political targets is also needed. The NATURA 2000 and Biodiversity should become at least so important as renewable sources and climate change issue at EU level.

[jan.sliva]

In the meantime we also "officially" know that the EU failed in the 2010 targets and that the species and habitat extinction continues (http://euobserver.com/9/29685/?rk=1). This message (what experts expected long time ago) is the strongest challenge of our work for the next decade.
In principle Natura 2000 and LIFE are very good tools but at the moment they are not competitive to other sectors (agriculture, foresty etc) in respect of political support and budget. If we like not to confess the failure of our goals 2020 again, a substantial changes have to happen. Otherwise NATURA 2000 and LIFE will more and more dagrade just to the greenwashing tool of the Community.
And - to reach the goal - we have to work on the change in the roots: we cannot be always "in competition" with other sectors, the environment and biodiversity issues must be part of all of them (sustainable agriculture and forestry, sustainable urban development with strong halting biodiversity aspects) and thus, these sectors should allocate substantial proportion of their budget for this purpose and should coopertae pro-actively.

[nickfolkard]

The short answer is yes! LIFE and LIFE+ have already made a big difference to the Natura network, and can continue to do so for many years into the future. Of course, LIFE+ cannot pay for everything that needs to be done within the Natura network - but it's not supposed to, and €70 million per year (is that right?) is much much better than nothing!     

[fidlojo]

Yes there are 27000 sites allocated. Are these all what are needed? Have this initiative welcomed by all government and local communities? Is the lack of management the only problem? I know government what has declared that the allocation of Natura 2000 sites were a crime. They would rather prefer to use the Natura 2000 site for housing estate.
I would like to refer again to http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2010/05/biodiversity-assessment.html
LIFE+ has now a special Information and Communication chapter what should be a tool for awareness raising campaigns. I witnessed two unsuccessful communication applications what intend to easy the scepticism towards this initiative.
LIFE and LIFE+ played and should play a very important role especially to introduce best practice and demonstration. LIFE projects already halted the decline of some endangered species but the LIFE initiatives cannot be and should not be the only tool for biodiversity management or even Natura 2000 sites management and should not strictly focussing on the Natura 2000 sites especially in case of species protection or fight against of invasive species. SPAs of Birds Directives based on the IBA (Important Bird Area) approach were selected as last refuge areas where the fragmented population of some endangered species still occurs. These fragmented populations may be maintained in the SPAs but to secure these endangered species we must to come out from these refuge areas. 
LIFE+ should play a key role in the necessary CAP and CFP reforms.
József Fidlóczky

[Maria Stoumboudi]

Life Nature has made a difference so far, especially in countries with poor management systems.
The problem of managing the Natura 2000 network in a durable way is very complex and needs indeed an integrated approach. Many of the parameters of its complexity were mentioned already here. To start filling the gap between “fully equipped management systems and nothing at all”, we could maybe think at the direction of financing projects that will focus on the building of management capacity, by establishing the appropriate networks whose main task will be knowledge transfer.
The baseline of making the Natura 2000 network work though is raising public awareness, because when the public understands why ecosystems have to be preserved (by realising the importance of ecosystem services), it adopts more ‘environmental friendly’ behaviours and it can also drive politicians to make better decisions, to allocate more money in the sector, to mobilise law enforcement mechanisms, etc.
Establishing pro-active cooperation with other sectors (as mentioned by Jan Sliva above) is in my opinion also absolutely necessary.

[teorsino]

We are an NGO. Our experience with LIFE Programme in the South of Italy is that LIFE projects are a unique opportunity to start a real management of Natura 2000 sites. In fact the awareness of public administrations about the necessity of this management is very poor and a LIFE project can actually increase the responsibility of local public bodies on the conservation issues.
On the other hand, public administrations are often not prepared in the management of LIFE projects and this could be cause of delays. We think that, in our country, a more intensive involvement of NGOs in LIFE projects could be useful to guarantee the long term effectiveness of the actions. This could be done with some adjustments in the financial rules of the programme (i.e. covering the amount of own co-funding with "in nature" goods or with the work of volunteers or rising the percentage of EU funding for project in cooperation with NGOs, etc.).
Matteo Orsino
Centro Studi Naturalistici Onlus